This is for an upcoming Mage: the Awakening game set in the past. For the purposes of this thread, though, the WoD-oriented/supernatural stuff is mostly irrelevant, I want to focus on the period.
There's quite a few people who like their historical gaming on this site, which is why it seems a good place to raise the topic of this period. What I'm after are good sources (preferably web-based) on the period and any useful summaries to get people into it quickly. A number of my fellow players already have an interest and of course there's films like Last of the Mohicans and Brotherhood of the Wolf which are in the right ballpark.
Note the choice of 1750s, not 1770s is deliberate, we're trying to avoid having the mundane context being dominated by the Revolutionary War (which being non-Americans has no special resonance for us). Yes, some of the themes and issues are driven by this, but it's a generation before.
I'm guessing it might be around New England or Virginia, but that's just a guess. That's something still to be discussed, we might be in New France or something (though one player has already expressed an interest in being English).
This is a pretty good online historical source. (http://www.history1700s.com/articles/article1063.shtml)
Now, I'd like to advocate piracy and smuggling, Virginia and Rhode Island both being notorious havens for these kind of extralegal activities during that time period.
Oh man, great timing! I just picked up my copy of Colonial Gothic 2nd Edition, which takes place in the 1770s, but has so much good stuff in it.
Well, you have the French & Indian War starting in 1754, and if you're in Virginia, a young George Washington is active as a colonial officer in the opening stages of the war.
Another item to consider is that most Americans at that time were at least fairly content under British rule. There's not much dissent, or any more than the faint stirrings of what was to come in terms of the Revolution (which really didn't start firing up until 1763 and later). Franklin does propose during this time that the colonies unite in some manner, but is pretty much blown off.
Ah, Franklin! Let's see...Ben Franklin is in in his mid-40s, and in 1754 was a delegate to the Albany Congress, which was working to intercede with England for favorable trade and military assistance. You only have him until about 1757, when he's shipped off as a diplomat to England.
There's very little population west of the Appalachians, of course, and it's French territory, anyway. You do have American/English settlers really starting to push back, which is one of the big things that leads to conflict on the frontier.
If you're dealing with Indians, just remember the British were allied with the Iroquois and Cherokee (for awhile), whereas the French's main allies were the Shawnee, some of the Delawares, Algonquin, Chippewa, and the formidable Shawnee.
Anyhow, that's just a few events/tidbits. I'll try to come up with more soon.
Quote from: Zachary The First;608786Oh man, great timing! I just picked up my copy of Colonial Gothic 2nd Edition, which takes place in the 1770s, but has so much good stuff in it.
(...)
I own the previous edition and most of the supplements. I know the OP is looking for online resources but the French & Indian War and New France books might be worth checking out for a 1750s game.
Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;608801I own the previous edition and most of the supplements. I know the OP is looking for online resources but the French & Indian War and New France books might be worth checking out for a 1750s game.
I was thinking the same thing. Much in both would still apply.
Others have pointed out that the French and Indian war was being fought at the time. Since you specified that you and your group are not Americans, I wanted to point out that it is known as the Seven Years War in most of the rest of the world. It's really possible to make the argument that it was the first 'World War'. There was fighting on five continents, so pretty global in scope.
Since the primary conflict in the Americas was between the French and English, it's very possible that you'll end up with some of the same themes if you set in that period.
It's worth noting that the 'frontier' during this time was pretty clearly defined. It wasn't until the 1770s that Boone opened up settlement beyond the Applachians. The easiest way to get to the interior was along the Mississippi (all French territory).
I don't really have any sources that I can point you to at the moment, but if you're looking to avoid any conflicts, you might want to look at the 1790s. The Revolution is over, and people are really engaging with the frontier. That'd be prior to the Louisiana Purchase... I think historically it'd hit most of what you're looking for while maintaining historical accuracy.
Even though it is primarily set in the revolutionary war Colonial gothic has a lot of mateeial you could use. They have supps for specific colonies, a book on the french indian war and the core book has a lot of well researched info.
Quote from: jeff37923;608785This is a pretty good online historical source. (http://www.history1700s.com/articles/article1063.shtml)
Now, I'd like to advocate piracy and smuggling, Virginia and Rhode Island both being notorious havens for these kind of extralegal activities during that time period.
It seems rather, um, pirate-centric. Though some of the other links have date-listings of various bits and pieces.
Quote from: Zachary The First;608786Oh man, great timing! I just picked up my copy of Colonial Gothic 2nd Edition, which takes place in the 1770s, but has so much good stuff in it.
Well, you have the French & Indian War starting in 1754, and if you're in Virginia, a young George Washington is active as a colonial officer in the opening stages of the war.
Another item to consider is that most Americans at that time were at least fairly content under British rule. There's not much dissent, or any more than the faint stirrings of what was to come in terms of the Revolution (which really didn't start firing up until 1763 and later). Franklin does propose during this time that the colonies unite in some manner, but is pretty much blown off.
Ah, Franklin! Let's see...Ben Franklin is in in his mid-40s, and in 1754 was a delegate to the Albany Congress, which was working to intercede with England for favorable trade and military assistance. You only have him until about 1757, when he's shipped off as a diplomat to England.
There's very little population west of the Appalachians, of course, and it's French territory, anyway. You do have American/English settlers really starting to push back, which is one of the big things that leads to conflict on the frontier.
If you're dealing with Indians, just remember the British were allied with the Iroquois and Cherokee (for awhile), whereas the French's main allies were the Shawnee, some of the Delawares, Algonquin, Chippewa, and the formidable Shawnee.
Anyhow, that's just a few events/tidbits. I'll try to come up with more soon.
Some good starting points, particularly the latter parts about the European alliances with natives.
I don't know how my group in general will want to approach the likes of Franklin and Washington, that's for discussion.
Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;608801I own the previous edition and most of the supplements. I know the OP is looking for online resources but the French & Indian War and New France books might be worth checking out for a 1750s game.
Hmmm, those two supplements do sound pretty ideal. How much is system-specific stuff (which will be irrelevant to us, given we're not playing Colonial Gothic) and how much is game-able historical info?
Quote from: deadDMwalking;608821Others have pointed out that the French and Indian war was being fought at the time. Since you specified that you and your group are not Americans, I wanted to point out that it is known as the Seven Years War in most of the rest of the world. It's really possible to make the argument that it was the first 'World War'. There was fighting on five continents, so pretty global in scope.
Since the primary conflict in the Americas was between the French and English, it's very possible that you'll end up with some of the same themes if you set in that period.
It's worth noting that the 'frontier' during this time was pretty clearly defined. It wasn't until the 1770s that Boone opened up settlement beyond the Applachians. The easiest way to get to the interior was along the Mississippi (all French territory).
I don't really have any sources that I can point you to at the moment, but if you're looking to avoid any conflicts, you might want to look at the 1790s. The Revolution is over, and people are really engaging with the frontier. That'd be prior to the Louisiana Purchase... I think historically it'd hit most of what you're looking for while maintaining historical accuracy.
To be clear, we're not trying to avoid conflict, just avoiding making the Revolution the centrepiece of the backdrop.
Useful point about the relative fixed-ness of the frontier in those days.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;608886Even though it is primarily set in the revolutionary war Colonial gothic has a lot of mateeial you could use. They have supps for specific colonies, a book on the french indian war and the core book has a lot of well researched info.
As above, how much mileage might we get out of the French & Indian War, and New France books?
Quote from: Kiero;608900As above, how much mileage might we get out of the French & Indian War, and New France books?
Colonial Gothic stuff tends to stand on its own in terms of giving backdrop and flavor. There is stuff there if you are using CG as your system, but you can easily bring it into any game. The major selling point of the line IMO is the setting material and how well researched/presented it is.
Here is a review of the French and Indian War that gives a bit more detail on the content:
http://roleplayerschronicle.com/?p=29320 (http://roleplayerschronicle.com/?p=29320)
Quote from: Zachary The First;608786If you're dealing with Indians, just remember the British were allied with the Iroquois and Cherokee (for awhile), whereas the French's main allies were the Shawnee, some of the Delawares, Algonquin, Chippewa, and the formidable Shawnee.
Didn't you mean to include the Huron in there? The St Lawrence tribes too?
I suggest reading some Leatherstocking tales by James Fennimore Cooper and/or Northwest Passage by Kenneth Roberts.
Quote from: BillDowns;608911Didn't you mean to include the Huron in there? The St Lawrence tribes too?
I suggest reading some Leatherstocking tales by James Fennimore Cooper and/or Northwest Passage by Kenneth Roberts.
Certainly it isn't an exhaustive list; yes, the Wyandot (Huron) would be in there as well!
Quote from: Kiero;608900(...)Hmmm, those two supplements do sound pretty ideal. How much is system-specific stuff (which will be irrelevant to us, given we're not playing Colonial Gothic) and how much is game-able historical info?
(...)As above, how much mileage might we get out of the French & Indian War, and New France books?
IIRC there's not much in those two books in terms of rules. Off the top of my head I think French & Indian War has rules for forts and group battles and New France has rules for dueling. Apart from those it's mostly historical setting info. Rogue Games' Richard is also a member of these forums so perhaps he might chime in for some more detail.
Precis Intermedia did a supplement to their Coyote Trail western game that deals with the colonial period. It's titled Colonial Record (http://www.pigames.net/store/product_info.php?products_id=220). RPGPundit did a review of it on this site. This does seem to contain a bit more system-related stuff, though.
Lots of people are probably eagerly awaiting the release of material for the Colonial Lovecraft Country (http://www.sixtystonepress.co.uk/?p=32) campaign setting from Sixtystone Press.
For getting a handle on colonial cultures Albion's Seed is a big door stopper of a book but it's a really really good point by point cultural analysis of the four main colonial cultures in what became the USA. It's provides a mountain of information and a lot of statistics but the author does a good job of making it readable. For example in the chapter on New England naming practices the court case that resulted from Goodman Woodman knocking up a girl named Fly Fornication is used as an example.
Quote from: Zachary The First;608786Oh man, great timing! I just picked up my copy of Colonial Gothic 2nd Edition, which takes place in the 1770s, but has so much good stuff in it.
I was actually thinking of that RPG when I read the thread title. I don't suppose you've played that yet?
Quote from: flyerfan1991;609923I was actually thinking of that RPG when I read the thread title. I don't suppose you've played that yet?
I haven't run 2nd Edition, but I have played Colonial Gothic before. Since the 2nd edition is still the same rules as the first, with only minor tweaks, it's all still backwards compatible. Uses the Rogue Games 12° system. I rather enjoyed it, though the cleanup definitely makes it easier to follow and use, I'm imagining.
Quote from: Zachary The First;609936I haven't run 2nd Edition, but I have played Colonial Gothic before. Since the 2nd edition is still the same rules as the first, with only minor tweaks, it's all still backwards compatible. Uses the Rogue Games 12° system. I rather enjoyed it, though the cleanup definitely makes it easier to follow and use, I'm imagining.
Just got this one myself. Looking forward to giving it a try.
Notice any key changes?
Quote from: Zachary The First;609936I haven't run 2nd Edition, but I have played Colonial Gothic before. Since the 2nd edition is still the same rules as the first, with only minor tweaks, it's all still backwards compatible. Uses the Rogue Games 12° system. I rather enjoyed it, though the cleanup definitely makes it easier to follow and use, I'm imagining.
When I skimmed the main book at a local FLGS, the first thing I thought of was Orson Scott Card's Alvin Maker books, but I don't think that's the case. How is the setting?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;609937Just got this one myself. Looking forward to giving it a try.
Notice any key changes?
In rules? Probably getting rid of the whole social combat/Resolve thing, which really just didn't seem to work well. So that's a smart move.
Quote from: flyerfan1991;609941When I skimmed the main book at a local FLGS, the first thing I thought of was Orson Scott Card's Alvin Maker books, but I don't think that's the case. How is the setting?
It's Colonial America in the early throes of the Revolution, with hints of many dark and arcane things afoot. You can tweak the setting to the French & Indian War with one of the supplements, but as it stands, it's a healthy dose of a regular history setting with the underpinnings of horror tied in.
Quote from: Kiero;608900As above, how much mileage might we get out of the French & Indian War, and New France books?
Well I think I can answer these questions. :)
Both books are supplement heavy. By that there is very little rule material there. What rule material there is, tends to be monsters, NPCs, and rules for mass combat.
With Colonial Gothic, research is the key. I, and my writers, strive, to make sure the history is known and we do not invalidate it. When horror or supernatural is injected, it must make sense.
In the books above, you will get a very good introduction to topic as well as a lot of material on the period. New France is written by a French Canadian, and he really did his homework to make sure the history was right.
Colonial Gothic can be played as a historical game, and the reason for this, is that the supernatural is easily plugged in or plugged out.
Hope that helps.
Richard
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;609937Just got this one myself. Looking forward to giving it a try.
Notice any key changes?
To be honest, not really. This game still plays, runs, and is compatible with what has come before. You can easily play and use the previous version and not notice anything. That being said two things have changed.
First, Social Combat has been totally rewritten. It runs smoother, it is quicker and it actually is a lot easier to use then it was before. Because of this, Resolve is no longer in the game. This is not a bad thing, because the Resolve stat always pissed me off.
Second, there are no longer rules for Specialized Skill use. This is one of the major areas that has caused confusion, and no mater how much I tried to clear it up, I failed. So I killed it. Why? How the game works, there is no need to allow for specialization. Since the TN is based on Stat + Skill, there is no benefit to specializing. Because of this, it made no sense to keep it. Since dropping it, play has been smoother.
The big change is more noticeable: editing. This book is the most edited, most reviewed, and most tweaked book I've done. It had three rounds of editing, and it was worth it.
Richard
Quote from: flyerfan1991;609941When I skimmed the main book at a local FLGS, the first thing I thought of was Orson Scott Card's Alvin Maker books, but I don't think that's the case. How is the setting?
Colonial Gothic is the history they never taught in school.
Basically the occult and supernatural is designed to emulate how the colonists saw it. The horror and the like is in the shadows, and unless you have seen it, or dealt with it, you know of it.
History happens the way we know it does. I do not turn Washington into a vampire, or Adams into a werewolf. Where it makes sense, that's where the horror is plugged in.
Case in point, I hint at Franklin being an Alchemist.
In short, you can run the game as a pure historical one, set during the period, or you can run it as a horror game. You can also run it as action game ala "Last of the Mohicans."
In short, I did not want it to be "wrong." I used history to make it make sense.
Richard
Quote from: RI2;609955Colonial Gothic is the history they never taught in school.
Basically the occult and supernatural is designed to emulate how the colonists saw it. The horror and the like is in the shadows, and unless you have seen it, or dealt with it, you know of it.
This reminds me of the tagline about the old computer game Darklands. It was designed to have the Middle Ages presented as the people who lived there imagined it to be.
QuoteHistory happens the way we know it does. I do not turn Washington into a vampire, or Adams into a werewolf. Where it makes sense, that's where the horror is plugged in.
Case in point, I hint at Franklin being an Alchemist.
In short, you can run the game as a pure historical one, set during the period, or you can run it as a horror game. You can also run it as action game ala "Last of the Mohicans."
In short, I did not want it to be "wrong." I used history to make it make sense.
Richard
That has definitely piqued my interest.
Quote from: flyerfan1991;609965This reminds me of the tagline about the old computer game Darklands. It was designed to have the Middle Ages presented as the people who lived there imagined it to be.
As a game designer, writer, and gamer, I think this is one of the better ways to handle historical topics when tinged with horror or fantasy. Take the view point of the residents of the period, and you have a easier task of staying on point.
For me, history has more cool hooks than anything I can make up, so I tend to run it close to the history.
I, and my group, have tried many different takes with Colonial Gothic. Some of the things I have done with it are:
1. Escaped slaves. The horror of being on the run is something that really spooked some of my players. There was no supernatural and the like. This was a pure historical mini campaign of 4 sessions, and the horror was the situation. One of these days this will see the light of day.
2. Horror of isolation. Players were trapped in a trading fort in the middle of winter, and one by one being killed by natives. This took place during the French and Indian War.
3. Horror of combat. Fighting the battle of Bunker Hill.
4. Pure supernatural horror which is where Flames of Freedom is set.
Colonial Gothic is a game you can use and run what you want. I have home schoolers who buy the game, and use it to teach what it was like to live in the period. I have a few school teachers who do the same. Reenacters have given me a lot of input when it comes to the fighting. The history is what drives this, but you can easily ignore it and run it as a more cinematic style game ala The Patriot and the like.
Richard
Boston 1775 (http://boston1775.blogspot.com/) is very good source of information about colonial New England, though most of the articles cover the 1760s-1770s.
Quote from: RI2;609955Case in point, I hint at Franklin being an Alchemist.
He was.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;610392He was.
RPGPundit
That's why I said "hint."
John Winthrop, the founder and first governor of Connecticut, was one as well.
Richard
A lot of Masons were, back then.
RPGPundit
Didn't the famed scholar (and Yale man) Ezra Stiles have some interest in alchemy, as well? He'd certainly fit in the time period...
Does anyone know of any (brief) articles on warfare in this period? Specifically how it was fought and what weapons were carried by infantry, cavalry and artillery. I could write something myself, but if someone's already done it, there's no point rehashing it.
Not my era, and history of war is not my speciality in any era, but I understand it that rules of war were very formal at the time.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;612359Not my era, and history of war is not my speciality in any era, but I understand it that rules of war were very formal at the time.
RPGPundit
The 'rules of war' are always formal, and they're usually ignored. That was one of the 'problems' with the American Revolutionaries.
The thing is, the 'rules' are always agreed on by what the major powers think is 'fair' - and it's usually what lets them use their power effectively. In some ways, it's not much different today.
The 'powers that be', say that enemy combatants should be uniformed; they should not dress as the opposing side or civilians. Obviously, that makes it much easier for drones to target them. But even in the 18th century, British soldiers had problems when militiamen formed up to fight, then dispersed back to their farmsteads and assumed a role as 'non-combatants'.
Likewise, it was considered 'ungentlemanly' to target specific soldiers - especially officers. The 'ideal' of warfare were packed formations firing muskets at other packed formations, ensuring that the volley would take a toll... If both sides followed the rules, than the side with the fastest firing time and most soldiers would win - and that was usually the British.
I've started on my article for the group:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I promised I'd write something on this for the benefit of those less familiar with it, and perhaps as a starting point to get everyone on the same page. I know some of you already have an interest in the period and/or may have played Empire: Total War which covers this specifically (though being CA with varying degrees of historicity).
If, like me, you were already familiar with Napoleonic warfare, beware; as I've discovered in my research while writing this, I've got a lot of implicit assumed 19th-century-isms wired into my head. Which aren't necessarily appropriate to the mid-18th century.
Warfare is a worthy topic for two reasons: firstly because in many RPGs combat is derived from warfare to a degree, even though the PC scale is usually more like a skirmish than a battle. Still the modes of combat and choice of armaments are often a reflection of what soldiers and armies are up to. Secondly, this was an age defined by war. For all the high-minded talk of ideals, war in this century was endemic (it's sometimes called the Second Hundred Years' War). All the great European powers of the day were fighting each other at home, abroad in their colonies in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and the Americas, and still in the business of trying to conquer native peoples in those areas too. We had a number of genuinely global conflicts, especially the one most relevant to this game set in the 1750s, the Seven Years War. Almost all of them were defined by conflict between two rival powers, around whom the alliances and concords were formed: Great Britain and France (likened to Carthage and Rome - Perfidious Albion was the villain of the piece).
On the nature of war and strategy
The 18th century signalled the death knell of the romantic and chivalric medieval notions of combat, along with almost all of their visible forms. Gunpowder was no longer a support element, but the main military technology changing everything about the way wars were fought. It was the birth of the Age of Rifles. This shake-up coincided with new ways of thinking about fielding and maintaining armies, and the pendulum of quantity v quality swinging into quality once again.
Professionalism was the order of the day; a well-drilled army could handily defeat a much larger, but more-poorly trained force taking relatively light casualties compared to earlier eras. It was also a means to supplant the mercenary companies which had grown to significant power and wealth, at the expense of nation states (and always liable to switch sides to the highest bidder) in the 17th century. Regular armies had uniforms, soldiers were drilled in how to perform their duties so that they became automatic, every arm had its prescribed role in battle and was expected to act as part of the broader plan. The campaign itself had a specific intent: to bring about a decisive battle which would force the loser to accede to the victor's terms in the treaty that followed. War had become a science (fitting in the Age of Reason) which could be studied; from how to train men in the best way, how to march them on campaign, how to choose a site for battle, how to deploy and lead them, how to billet and supply them and so on. Though it's worth noting that there were only a few genuine military academies training a minority of the officers in any nation's armed forces.
Professional forces were expensive to recruit, outfit, train and maintain, and thus generals became much more careful in how they used them. Strategy grew up around only fighting on terms favourable to you, and otherwise avoiding battle. Along with taking time in sieges, which became a skilled discipline in it's own right. You couldn't afford to lose half your force in an ill-planned action, those casualties would be irreplacable in the short term. If that force was your nation's entire military (as the case for Prussia), throwing them away would end your ability to remain independent. As in previous eras, the loser suffered disproportionate losses to the victor, usually because of men killed in the rout once the battle was over.
It's worth stressing how important psychology was, battles were not won by simply killing more of the other side (though that helped), but by breaking the morale and fighting spirit of the opposition. Many of the facets of this style of warfare were unusual or frightening to someone not hardened by drill and experience; everything was noisy, stinking sulphurous smoke often obscured the field; men on horses roamed the field looking for an opportunity to kill and might appear behind you; fragments of lead and metal struck all around seemingly at random; men were cheering, shouting, swearing, praying and screaming and sobbing in pain; drums, flutes and pipes were playing.
War was also perceived (by contemporaries and some later) as having become a more honourable affair, now that melee combat was relegated to a secondary role. Due to stratified class structures, officers were men of property and connections, thus expected to be gentlemen. While promotion was officially determined by seniority, you could buy your way up the chain of command, jumping the queue. Ordinary soldiers would expect their officers to be "better" than them, and officers could expect to receive different treatment. If a ranker was captured by the enemy, he'd be put in prison. If an officer was captured, he could expect to be "paroled", and be free to move around the enemy camp, swearing on his honour that he would not try to escape, but would wait for an enemy officer of equal rank to be traded for him. If an enemy surrendered, they expected not to be summarily executed. If a city chose not to resist a siege, the local populace would expect to be left unmolested (though the age-old maxim of a besieged populace being entirely at the mercy of the besiegers once the assault began remained). It was deemed ungentlemanly to specifically target officers in battle. Thoughts were spared for actually supplying an army on the march, rather than living off the land (ie stealing whatever you needed from the local people), though it was still an amateurish affair (and not every general cared about the goodwill of the host nations).
The order of battle
The previous era, the Age of Pike and Shot has its last gasps in the 1720s, by the 1750s every European nations' regular forces had phased out those modes of combat in favour of the new. Advances in gunpowder technology were the reason. Flintlock muskets were more robust, more reliable and more powerful than firelock arquebuses. More powerful firearms finally made personal body armour obsolete (shields had all but gone before that); armour couldn't get any heavier without being impractical, and it was no longer sufficient to stop a regular musket ball. Infantry duels could be won with musketry alone (partly due to the psychological effect of massed volley fire), and combined with the innovation of the bayonet (which turned a musket into a handy cavalry-negating spear), the pike was made irrelevant. No pikes and no heavy armour meant the plethora of two-handed weapons designed to defeat pike blocks and get through heavy armour were no longer useful on the battlefield, though they remained in ceremonial use. The sword went from a ubiquitous sidearm to something only worn by officers and cavalrymen.
There were three main battlefield elements to an army of this era: infantry, cavalry and artillery, which interacted with each other in what was basically an enhanced "stone, paper, scissors". Infantry in line (or wosre still, skirmish order) was a poor target for artillery, but a ripe target for cavalry (who had no trouble riding down and in amongst scattered men). Infantry in square or column was impenetrable to cavalry, but a nice rich target for artillery. If all three arms were employed in concert, you had a range of tactical options to approach an enemy, and one which was poorly co-ordinated could be taken apart by one which was.
Infantry
The bulk of any regular force remained the infantry. Recruited from the lowest stratum of society and often scorned by civilians and their officers, many were tricked or otherwise induced into signing up, or did so to escape criminal punishment. Poor footsloggers were the people who had to march in ordered ranks into artillery fire and duke it out with other bodies of infantry, all the while staying alert for lurking cavalry hoping to fall upon them in open/skirmishing order. A key part of the intensive drilling of a professional force, besides being able to reload and fire swiftly on command, was being able to smoothly change their formation as a collective. From marching column into battle order, from line into square/column and back again as circumstances and opposition demanded. There were three types of infantry, line/heavy, elite and light.
Line infantry were the decisive element, the main combatants who fought in close order lines and traded volleys with their counterparts. Their job was to take and hold ground. They fought in a three- or four-rank line for musketry or collapsed into a hollow, four-rank square to ward off cavalry, or a wide-fronted column to move quickly under fire. They wore identical uniforms with hats reflecting both their nation and individual regiment. They wore no armour and carried all their personal gear on their backs. Rankers were armed with a heavy musket and socket bayonet. A musket was smoothbore, it wasn't accurate beyond about 50 yards (and even then not terribly so), which necessitated volley fire to increase the chances of some bullets hitting something. Non-commissioned officers were often armed with a spontoon rather than a musket, and wore a sword as a badge of rank. Officers wore different uniforms and didn't carry a longarm, instead using a sword (usually a smallsword, though Scottish Highland officers might prefer a broadsword) and pistol. Personal weapons included knives, hachets (popular in the Americas) and hangers.
Elite infantry were the remnants of royal guards and other units designated as special such as grenadiers (who carried grenades). They were the only infantry who might retain some form of personal armour, often only helmets, but possibly extending to breastplates. Aside from their prestige, they were employed in the same manner as line infantry, though might be more likely to be reserved for the thickest fighting. Grenadiers and pioneers might carry big axes for tackling fortifications.
Light infantry (such as the German Jäger) were skirmishers trained to fight in open order and make use of the terrain for cover. Their job was to screen the main force, harass opposing skirmishers, scout the route ahead and so on. These were usually riflemen carrying rifled carbines which were shorter and lighter than a musket, but also slower to load (because of the difficulty of forcing a bullet down past the grooves of the rifling that made them accurate) and faster to foul (making them harder still to reload). Unlike the musket, a rifle was accurate with aimed shots to about 100 yards. Light infantry weren't very well regarded by most nations, who saw line infantry as the most important force. Light infantry officers sometimes used sabres rather than smallswords.
Cavalry
While infantry did most of the fighting, cavalry retained a role - usually in countering enemy cavalry and riding down fleeing infantrymen at the conclusion of a battle. While attacking an unbroken infantry unit head-on was suicidal, lines were vulnerable in their flanks and rear. There was also the psychological impact of a man on a horse charging at you. Thus effective use of cavalry could turn a battle, though they could no longer win it by themselves. They made up a minority of the roll of battle, though some nations were able to field more cavalry than others.
Cavalry were a presitigous arm, troopers were held in greater esteem than infantry privates. They were often recruited from the yeoman farmer class, as well as country lads who'd experience of riding. Ambitious men of substance who weren't afraid to fight often sought commissions in cavalry regiments as a means to fast advancement. Most cavalry wore no armour, barring some elite/heavy units who might have a cuirass. Very roughly there were two types of cavalry, light and heavy, with a third special type emerging in this era.
Light cavalry tended to be the majority of a cavalry contingent, unarmoured men and horses used for scouting, screening, skirmishing, fighting other light cavalry and riding down fleeing infantry. Fast and agile, they could be a menace to unaware enemy infantry and poorly-protected artillery batteries. They used either sabre or lance (the Polish were renowned and feared lancers) and might carry pistols.
Heavy cavalry were often designated as elites (usually royal guards or equivalent, including the Mamluks). Bigger men on larger, heavier horses who sometimes wore a cuirass and helmet and generally fought with broad swords. Their job was to drive off enemy light cavalry and charge into the flanks and rear of infantry.
A third type which appeared in this era (and became proper "medium cavalry" towards the end of the century) was the dragoon, intended as mounted infantry able to use the speed and mobility of a horse to get to where they were needed, then dismount and form up. Multi-role generalists, they were often inferior against proper cavalry (especially heavies) and were paid less and had lower status than the other two types. That flexibility, however, also made them useful for "internal security" against smugglers and civil unrest. Their classic panoply was a sabre, an axe and a carbine (short musket).
Artillery
The Swedish king Gustavus Adolphus made the cannon an effective force on the battlefield, using smaller, lighter guns in larger numbers than previously available. Bombards of old were too heavy and slow outside of sieges, and liable to be lost in retreat. The new types of gun completely invalidated millenia of siege warfare, where any medieval style of wall or fortification could be easily reduced to rubble. This led to a frenzy of bastion-style fortresses being built across Europe and the colonies, but also strengthened the hand of the monarch with respect to his local lords if he had modern artillery.
-support - musicians, engineers, logistics, couriers/messengers/aide-de-camp
Irregulars
While nations would prefer to only have properly-trained regulars, use of auxiliary troops of various types was inevitable. Most often locally-recruited militias, civilians pressed into military service (either temporarily or drawing upon existing units formed for civil defense). In the Americas each of the colonies was required to maintain a militia against the threat of invasion from foreign powers. Irregulars usually performed the tasks of light infantry, scouting, screening and skirmishing, and often weren't trusted to feature in the fighting line. The reality of warfare in the colonies was that there was only ever a limited number of regulars stationed there, and the bulk of the fighting was done by irregulars (militias and natives), usually outside the context of formal, pitched battles as described above. This meant that irregular units could, with experience, become just as proficient as regulars, and some "ranger" units (such as mixed militia and native outfits like Gorham's Rangers) were often elites.
Hastily-armed civilians might be issued standard infantry muskets; those with a hunting background could bring along rifles. In America specifically, the long rifle was a common hunting weapon in certain parts (it's first recorded manufacture was in 1719), and men familiar with its use brought it to war with them. Accurate at distances even longer than the rifled carbines used by light infantry (200-300 yards wasn't uncommon in the hands of a competent marksman), it brought a particular character to warfare in America. The final French and Indian War demonstrated the value of the long rifle for light infantry, where pragmatic colonials ignored the polite rules of war and targeted officers to reduce an enemy's effectiveness. Irregulars would often have a knife and/or hachet as backup weapons, given their value as tools on the frontier.
Another major classification of irregular in the Americas were the native peoples, who fought on every side of the various conflicts. Their traditional forms of warfare were perfectly adapted for light infantry tactics, and they often served as scouts and skirmishers to European armies and militias. Some militias recruited friendly natives directly, and many of the ranger-designated outfits learned their trade from their native members. Every native warrior carried a knife, though beyond that weapon choices were down to individual preference. For ranged weapons traditional armaments included the bow, sling or blowgun and throwing weapons such as javelins, bolas and balanced axes were common. While some native warriors used the musket, they fought as individuals rather than in ordered lines making it less effective (but also making musket volleys less effective against them in turn). For close combat a wide range of weapons was employed; tomahawks, war clubs and gunstock clubs, spears and hammers. Many colonials adopted native methods of fighting and armaments.
It's worth noting that one of the earliest treatise on the use of light infantry and guerilla warfare, Rogers' Rules of Ranging, was written in this era and in America.
Naval Warfare
-marines
Civilians
Civilian life was by no means peaceful, with various forms of violence an everday occurrence. For the upper classes, it was expected that a gentleman wore a sword (he wasn't "fully dressed" without) and it behooved him to know how to use it, should he be called upon to satisfy questions of honour. Duelling was rife, though fashions had moved away from the sword to the pistol being the primary choice of weapon (after incidents like the death of Baron Mohun, popularised in fiction at the time). The rapier persisted, though many preferred the smallsword. Gentlemen who were serving military officers could wear their usual swords in public if in uniform.
Duelling pistols were more expensive and of better manufacture than the sorts commonly found in the hands of soldiers, though weren't carried on someone's person. A gentleman would send his valet or second to fetch his pistols from home if he were called to duel on short notice. There were various rules designed to minimise deaths, sometimes honour was satisfied merely by attending, then if one duellist chose to shoot the ground, the other could do the same and agree that both were happy.
Outbreaks of violence amongst the lower orders were not uncommon, and many working class men (rural and urban) carried a knife on their person as a matter of course, given it had various uses as a tool. Weapons improvised from repurposed tools used in their trade were commonplace (invariably something heavy and blunt).
Pugilism (ie boxing) was popular with all classes as was wrestling. There were also several European martial arts in use at this time. Fencing was popular amongst those who could afford to join a salle or have an instructor. Singlestick and la canne were two similar English and French styles of stick-fighting (also applicable to using a sword-cane). Rarer, but still accessible with the right sort of lifestyle were two unarmed styles, the French savate and Basque-Spanish zipota, popular with sailors.
What does any of this mean for PCs?
-to write-
Getting there with the article for my group (the real thing has a lot of Wikipedia links):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I promised I'd write something on this for the benefit of those less familiar with it, and perhaps as a starting point to get everyone on the same page. I know some of you already have an interest in the period and/or may have played Empire: Total War which covers this specifically (though being CA with varying degrees of historicity).
If, like me, you were already familiar with Napoleonic warfare, beware; as I've discovered in my research while writing this, I've got a lot of implicit assumed 19th-century-isms wired into my head. Which aren't necessarily appropriate to the mid-18th century.
Warfare is a worthy topic for two reasons: firstly because in many RPGs combat is derived from warfare to a degree, even though the PC scale is usually more like a skirmish than a battle. Still the modes of combat and choice of armaments are often a reflection of what soldiers and armies are up to. Secondly, this was an age defined by war. For all the high-minded talk of ideals, war in this century was endemic (it's sometimes called the Second Hundred Years' War). All the great European powers of the day were fighting each other at home, abroad in their colonies in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and the Americas, and still in the business of trying to conquer native peoples in those areas too. We had a number of genuinely global conflicts, especially the one most relevant to this game set in the 1750s, the Seven Years War. Almost all of them were defined by conflict between two rival powers, around whom the alliances and concords were formed: Great Britain and France (likened to Carthage and Rome - Perfidious Albion was the villain of the piece).
On the nature of war and strategy
The 18th century signalled the death knell of the romantic and chivalric medieval notions of combat, along with almost all of their visible forms. Gunpowder was no longer a support element, but the main military technology changing everything about the way wars were fought. It was the birth of the Age of Rifles. This shake-up coincided with new ways of thinking about fielding and maintaining armies, and the pendulum of quantity v quality swinging into quality once again.
Professionalism was the order of the day; a well-drilled army could handily defeat a much larger, but more-poorly trained force taking relatively light casualties compared to earlier eras. It was also a means to supplant the mercenary companies which had grown to significant power and wealth, at the expense of nation states (and always liable to switch sides to the highest bidder) in the 17th century. Regular armies had uniforms, soldiers were drilled in how to perform their duties so that they became automatic, every arm had its prescribed role in battle and was expected to act as part of the broader plan. The campaign itself had a specific intent: to bring about a decisive battle which would force the loser to accede to the victor's terms in the treaty that followed. War had become a science (fitting in the Age of Reason) which could be studied; from how to train men in the best way, how to march them on campaign, how to choose a site for battle, how to deploy and lead them, how to billet and supply them and so on. Though it's worth noting that there were only a few genuine military academies training a minority of the officers in any nation's armed forces.
Professional forces were expensive to recruit, outfit, train and maintain, and thus generals became much more careful in how they used them. Strategy grew up around only fighting on terms favourable to you, and otherwise avoiding battle. Along with taking time in sieges, which became a skilled discipline in it's own right. You couldn't afford to lose half your force in an ill-planned action, those casualties would be irreplacable in the short term. If that force was your nation's entire military (as the case for Prussia), throwing them away would end your ability to remain independent. As in previous eras, the loser suffered disproportionate losses to the victor, usually because of men killed in the rout once the battle was over.
It's worth stressing how important psychology was, battles were not won by simply killing more of the other side (though that helped), but by breaking the morale and fighting spirit of the opposition. Many of the facets of this style of warfare were unusual or frightening to someone not hardened by drill and experience; everything was noisy, stinking sulphurous smoke often obscured the field; men on horses roamed the field looking for an opportunity to kill and might appear behind you; fragments of lead and metal struck all around seemingly at random; men were cheering, shouting, swearing, praying and screaming and sobbing in pain; drums, flutes and pipes were playing.
War was also perceived (by contemporaries and some later) as having become a more honourable affair, now that melee combat was relegated to a secondary role. Due to stratified class structures, officers were men of property and connections, thus expected to be gentlemen. While promotion was officially determined by seniority, you could buy your way up the chain of command, jumping the queue. Ordinary soldiers would expect their officers to be "better" than them, and officers could expect to receive different treatment. If a ranker was captured by the enemy, he'd be put in prison. If an officer was captured, he could expect to be "paroled", and be free to move around the enemy camp, swearing on his honour that he would not try to escape, but would wait for an enemy officer of equal rank to be traded for him. If an enemy surrendered, they expected not to be summarily executed. If a city chose not to resist a siege, the local populace would expect to be left unmolested (though the age-old maxim of a besieged populace being entirely at the mercy of the besiegers once the assault began remained). It was deemed ungentlemanly to specifically target officers in battle. Thoughts were spared for actually supplying an army on the march, rather than living off the land (ie stealing whatever you needed from the local people), though it was still an amateurish affair (and not every general cared about the goodwill of the host nations).
The order of battle
The previous era, the Age of Pike and Shot has its last gasps in the 1720s, by the 1750s every European nations' regular forces had phased out those modes of combat in favour of the new. Advances in gunpowder technology were the reason. Flintlock muskets were more robust, more reliable and more powerful than firelock arquebuses. More powerful firearms finally made personal body armour obsolete (shields had all but gone before that); armour couldn't get any heavier without being impractical, and it was no longer sufficient to stop a regular musket ball. Infantry duels could be won with musketry alone (partly due to the psychological effect of massed volley fire), and combined with the innovation of the bayonet (which turned a musket into a handy cavalry-negating spear), the pike was made irrelevant. No pikes and no heavy armour meant the plethora of two-handed weapons designed to defeat pike blocks and get through heavy armour were no longer useful on the battlefield, though they remained in ceremonial use. The sword went from a ubiquitous sidearm to something only worn by officers and cavalrymen.
There were three main battlefield elements to an army of this era: infantry, cavalry and artillery, which interacted with each other in what was basically an enhanced "stone, paper, scissors". Infantry in line (or wosre still, skirmish order) was a poor target for artillery, but a ripe target for cavalry (who had no trouble riding down and in amongst scattered men). Infantry in square or column was impenetrable to cavalry, but a nice rich target for artillery. If all three arms were employed in concert, you had a range of tactical options to approach an enemy, and one which was poorly co-ordinated could be taken apart by one which was.
Infantry
The bulk of any regular force remained the infantry. Recruited from the lowest stratum of society and often scorned by civilians and their officers, many were tricked or otherwise induced into signing up, or did so to escape criminal punishment. Poor footsloggers were the people who had to march in ordered ranks into artillery fire and duke it out with other bodies of infantry, all the while staying alert for lurking cavalry hoping to fall upon them in open/skirmishing order. A key part of the intensive drilling of a professional force, besides being able to reload and fire swiftly on command, was being able to smoothly change their formation as a collective. From marching column into battle order, from line into square/column and back again as circumstances and opposition demanded. There were three types of infantry, line/heavy, elite and light.
Line infantry were the decisive element, the main combatants who fought in close order lines and traded volleys with their counterparts. Their job was to take and hold ground. They fought in a three- or four-rank line for musketry or collapsed into a hollow, four-rank square to ward off cavalry, or a wide-fronted column to move quickly under fire. They wore identical uniforms with hats reflecting both their nation and individual regiment. They wore no armour and carried all their personal gear on their backs. Rankers were armed with a heavy musket and socket bayonet. A musket was smoothbore, it wasn't accurate beyond about 50 yards (and even then not terribly so), which necessitated volley fire to increase the chances of some bullets hitting something. Non-commissioned officers were often armed with a spontoon rather than a musket, and wore a sword as a badge of rank. Officers wore different uniforms and didn't carry a longarm, instead using a sword (usually a smallsword, though Scottish Highland officers might prefer a broadsword) and pistol. Personal weapons included knives, hachets (popular in the Americas) and hangers.
Elite infantry were the remnants of royal guards and other units designated as special such as grenadiers (who carried grenades). They were the only infantry who might retain some form of personal armour, often only helmets, but possibly extending to breastplates. Aside from their prestige, they were employed in the same manner as line infantry, though might be more likely to be reserved for the thickest fighting. Grenadiers and pioneers might carry big axes for tackling fortifications.
Light infantry (such as the German Jäger) were skirmishers trained to fight in open order and make use of the terrain for cover. Their job was to screen the main force, harass opposing skirmishers, scout the route ahead and so on. These were usually riflemen carrying rifled carbines which were shorter and lighter than a musket, but also slower to load (because of the difficulty of forcing a bullet down past the grooves of the rifling that made them accurate) and faster to foul (making them harder still to reload). Unlike the musket, a rifle was accurate with aimed shots to about 100 yards. Light infantry weren't very well regarded by most nations, who saw line infantry as the most important force. Light infantry officers sometimes used sabres rather than smallswords.
Cavalry
While infantry did most of the fighting, cavalry retained a role - usually in countering enemy cavalry and riding down fleeing infantrymen at the conclusion of a battle. While attacking an unbroken infantry unit head-on was suicidal, lines were vulnerable in their flanks and rear. There was also the psychological impact of a man on a horse charging at you. Thus effective use of cavalry could turn a battle, though they could no longer win it by themselves. They made up a minority of the roll of battle, though some nations were able to field more cavalry than others.
Cavalry were a presitigous arm, troopers were held in greater esteem than infantry privates. They were often recruited from the yeoman farmer class, as well as country lads who'd experience of riding. Ambitious men of substance who weren't afraid to fight often sought commissions in cavalry regiments as a means to fast advancement. Most cavalry wore no armour, barring some elite/heavy units who might have a cuirass. Very roughly there were two types of cavalry, light and heavy, with a third special type emerging in this era.
Light cavalry tended to be the majority of a cavalry contingent, unarmoured men and horses used for scouting, screening, skirmishing, fighting other light cavalry and riding down fleeing infantry. Fast and agile, they could be a menace to unaware enemy infantry and poorly-protected artillery batteries. They used either sabre or lance (the Polish were renowned and feared lancers) and might carry pistols.
Heavy cavalry were often designated as elites (usually royal guards or equivalent, including the Mamluks). Bigger men on larger, heavier horses who sometimes wore a cuirass and helmet and generally fought with broad swords. Their job was to drive off enemy light cavalry and charge into the flanks and rear of infantry.
A third type which appeared in this era (and became proper "medium cavalry" towards the end of the century) was the dragoon, intended as mounted infantry able to use the speed and mobility of a horse to get to where they were needed, then dismount and form up. Multi-role generalists, they were often inferior against proper cavalry (especially heavies) and were paid less and had lower status than the other two types. That flexibility, however, also made them useful for "internal security" against smugglers and civil unrest. Their classic panoply was a sabre, an axe and a carbine (short musket).
Artillery
Artillery was the smallest and most technical arm of an 18th century army. It was their job to reduce fortifications, decimate packed bodies of infantry and counter enemy artillery. The use of artillery required educated officers knowledgeable in mathematics to calculate range, trajectory, adjust for environmental conditions and so on. Gunnery had become a science, and it's officers were some of the most qualified men in the army. It also required technical expertise on the part of the crews who had to keep the guns working even as their barrels fouled and grew hot. Even moreso than in the class distinction in other arms, there was a real gulf between artillery officers and gun crews. They were a respectable arm, though deafness was an occupational hazard.
It was in the 17th century that the cannon an effective force on the battlefield, where smaller, lighter guns were fielded in larger numbers than previously. Bombards of old were too heavy and slow outside of sieges, and liable to be lost in rapid enemy action. The new types of gun completely invalidated millenia of siege warfare, where any medieval style of wall or fortification could be easily reduced to rubble. This led to a frenzy of bastion-style fortresses being built across Europe and the colonies, the cost of which was beyond anyone but a central authority, further strengthening the hand of the monarch with respect to his local lords if he also had modern artillery.
The basic design of a field gun was set in the 15th century; a barrel mounted on a wheeled carriage with a limber that allowed it to be drawn by horses or oxen. The 17th century brought technological advancements and more specialised pieces; shipboard artillery, howitzers and mortars. The heaviest guns were in fixed emplacements, or strictly siege pieces. Next were those aboard ship, with only the lightest being deployed in the open field. In the 18th century a French artillery engineer introduced standardisation of artillery and the century also heralded battlefield use of indirect fire and horse artillery (light guns with entirely mounted crews, able to get into position and fire quickly, but also able to quickly pack up and move if threatened).
The most basic ammunition was the roundshot, solid balls of lead which had a long range and were useful against fortifications and packed bodies of men. Roundshot could also be heated prior to use to start fires. Explosive shells, hollowed out lead balls filled with gunpowder that fragmented when the internal charge went off, were invented in this era, which were an effective anti-personnel round. Grapeshot was a bag packed with small fragments (musket balls, nails, etc) which at close ranged turned the gun into a giant blunderbuss and caused hideous damage to anyone in front of it. Canister was similar to grapeshot, but used a metal container which would also fragment when fired.
Support
The three main arms weren't the only participants in war. Infantry regiments had musicians who doubled as stretcher-bearers to take away the wounded. For infantry, drummers and pipers were the most common, who helped men to keep time while marching and boosted morale. Cavalry regiments had buglers who relayed orders using pre-arranged signals.
- musicians, engineers, logistics, couriers/messengers/aide-de-camp, camp followers (laundresses, cooks, tailors, sutlers, etc)
Irregulars
While nations would prefer to only have properly-trained regulars, use of auxiliary troops of various types was inevitable. Most often locally-recruited militias, civilians pressed into military service (either temporarily or drawing upon existing units formed for civil defense). In the Americas each of the colonies was required to maintain a militia against the threat of invasion from foreign powers. Originally every free white man was enrolled, but with the end of the threat from Indians, this had ceased by 1725. If a conflict took place within a colony, the militia would be compelled to muster. Meanwhile militias from neighbouring colonies would be asked for volunteers to participate. Irregulars usually performed the tasks of light infantry, scouting, screening and skirmishing, and often weren't trusted to feature in the fighting line. The reality of warfare in the colonies was that there was only ever a limited number of regulars stationed there, and the bulk of the fighting was done by irregulars (militias and natives), usually outside the context of formal, pitched battles as described above. This meant that irregular units could, with experience, become just as proficient as regulars, and some "ranger" units (such as mixed militia and native outfits like Gorham's Rangers) were often elites.
Hastily-armed civilians might be issued standard infantry muskets; those with a hunting background could bring along rifles. In America specifically, the long rifle was a common hunting weapon in certain parts (it's first recorded manufacture was in 1719), and men familiar with its use brought it to war with them. Accurate at distances even longer than the rifled carbines used by light infantry (200-300 yards wasn't uncommon in the hands of a competent marksman), it brought a particular character to warfare in America. The final French and Indian War demonstrated the value of the long rifle for light infantry, where pragmatic colonials ignored the polite rules of war and targeted officers to reduce an enemy's effectiveness. Irregulars would often have a knife and/or hachet as backup weapons, given their value as tools on the frontier.
Another major classification of irregular in the Americas were the native peoples, who fought on every side of the various conflicts. Their traditional forms of warfare were perfectly adapted for light infantry tactics, and they often served as scouts and skirmishers to European armies and militias. Some militias recruited friendly natives directly, and many of the ranger-designated outfits learned their trade from their native members. Every native warrior carried a knife, though beyond that weapon choices were down to individual preference. For ranged weapons traditional armaments included the bow, sling or blowgun and throwing weapons such as javelins, bolas and balanced axes were common. While some native warriors used the musket, they fought as individuals rather than in ordered lines making it less effective (but also making musket volleys less effective against them in turn). For close combat a wide range of weapons was employed; tomahawks, war clubs and gunstock clubs, spears and hammers. Many colonials adopted native methods of fighting and armaments.
It's worth noting that one of the earliest treatise on the use of light infantry and guerilla warfare, Rogers' Rules of Ranging, was written in this era and in America.
Mercenaries
While the British famously used Hessian mercenaries in large numbers in the Americas, its inconceivable in an era of near-constant warfare that there wasn't a surplus of ex-military veterans and others familiar with violence who might turn their hand to mercenary work.
Naval Warfare
-marines
Civilians
Civilian life was by no means peaceful, with various forms of violence an everday occurrence. For the upper classes, it was expected that a gentleman wore a sword (he wasn't "fully dressed" without) and it behooved him to know how to use it, should he be called upon to satisfy questions of honour. Duelling was rife, though fashions had moved away from the sword to the pistol being the primary choice of weapon (after incidents like the death of Baron Mohun, popularised in fiction at the time). The rapier persisted, though many preferred the smallsword. Gentlemen who were serving military officers could wear their usual swords in public if in uniform.
Duelling pistols were more expensive and of better manufacture than the sorts commonly found in the hands of soldiers, though weren't carried on someone's person. A gentleman would send his valet or second to fetch his pistols from home if he were called to duel on short notice. There were various rules designed to minimise deaths, sometimes honour was satisfied merely by attending, then if one duellist chose to shoot the ground, the other could do the same and agree that both were happy.
Outbreaks of violence amongst the lower orders were not uncommon, and many working class men (rural and urban) carried a knife on their person as a matter of course, given it had various uses as a tool. Weapons improvised from repurposed tools used in their trade were commonplace (invariably something heavy and blunt).
Pugilism (ie boxing) was popular with all classes as was wrestling. There were also several European martial arts in use at this time. Fencing was popular amongst those who could afford to join a salle or have an instructor. Singlestick and la canne were two similar English and French styles of stick-fighting (also applicable to using a sword-cane). Rarer, but still accessible with the right sort of lifestyle were two unarmed styles, the French savate and Basque-Spanish zipota, popular with sailors. All of these could see use in warfare as well as in the street.
What does any of this mean for PCs?
Obviously if you have a PC with a military background, or experience of war they'd be aware of some or all of this stuff. What is of greater impact, though are the sorts of weapon choices open to them, the types of training commonly available, and the way their enemies are likely to fight. As already noted, regulars has a limited impact in the American theatre because there were so few of them. Most nations relied on militias and natives, though the former were often arranged along similar lines to regulars, and might even have regular officers or else veterans of regular units.
As noted most of the medieval mainstays - armour and a wide variety of swords - are no longer in circulation. At best they're historical relics in the form of family heirlooms or in the hands of private collectors. Wearing a sword wasn't frowned upon (especially if you were of a certain class), but it was likely to be a smallsword, or if a serving officer in uniform, a sabre or broadsword. Knives were a practical tool carried by many, though these were usually utility knives, rather than larger hunting or fighting knives. Tomahawks or hachets were popular amongst frontier and native types. Clubs, singlesticks and batons were a common choice of weapon when preparing for trouble (or occasionally a quarterstaff), and many gentlemen carried a cane or walking stick which could double up as a weapon (when it didn't conceal a sword). Guns weren't usually carried around in town, and most people didn't own a gun unless they had a hunting or duelling background.
Armed opposition is most likely to be either natives or European civilians. Of the civilians, some may be militia-trained and armed with firearms, but others would simply have whatever improvised weapon they could bring along.