Historical Record of the Eighteenth, or the Royal Irish Regiment of Foot Containing an Account of the Formation of the Regiment in 1684, and of Its Subsequent Services to — A Closer Reading
Edition facts
The source record for Historical Record of the Eighteenth, or the Royal Irish Regiment of Foot Containing an Account of the Formation of the Regiment in 1684, and of Its Subsequent Services to — A Closer Reading measures this digital text at 35,282 words, 2 hr 34 min estimated reading time, and 6 detected text sections.
The text analysis averages about 30.1 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.
Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Great Britain. Army -- History,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.
Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.
How this score is calculated
- Description quality20 pts
- Title & short description10 pts
- Source metadata20 pts
- Text length15 pts
- Chapters / structure15 pts
- EPUB file integrity20 pts
Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.
Read the Text
ey had also men armed with clubs, others with battle-axes and javelins.
The feudal troops established by William the Conqueror consisted (as already stated in the Introduction to the Cavalry) almost entirely of horse; but when the warlike barons and knights, with their trains of tenants and vassals, took the field, a proportion of men appeared on foot, and, although these were of inferior degree, they proved stout-hearted Britons of stanch fidelity. When stipendiary troops were employed, infantry always constituted a considerable portion of the military force; and this _arme_ has since acquired, in every quarter of the globe, a celebrity never exceeded by the armies of any nation at any period.
The weapons carried by the infantry, during the several reigns succeeding the Conquest, were bows and arrows, half-pikes, lances, halberds, various kinds of battle-axes, swords, and daggers. Armour was worn on the head and body, and in course of time the practice became general for military men to be so completely cased in steel, that it was almost impossible to slay them.
The introduction of the use of gunpowder in the destructive purposes of war, in the early part of the fourteenth century, produced a change in the arms and equipment of the infantry-soldier. Bows and arrows gave place to various kinds of fire-arms, but British archers continued formidable adversaries; and, owing to the inconvenient construction and imperfect bore of the fire-arms when first introduced, a body of men, well trained in the use of the bow from their youth, was considered a valuable acquisition to every army, even as late as the sixteenth century.
During a great part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth each company of infantry usually consisted of men armed five different ways; in every hundred men forty were "_men-at-arms_," and sixty "_shot_;" the "men-at-arms" were ten halberdiers, or battle-axe men, and thirty pikemen; and the "shot" were twenty archers, twenty musketeers, and twenty harquebusiers, and each man carried, besides his principal weapon, a sword and dagger.
Companies of infantry varied at this period in numbers from 150 to 300 men; each company had a colour or ensign, and the mode of formation recommended by an English military writer (Sir John Smithe) in 1590 was:--the colour in the centre of the company guarded by the halberdiers; the pikemen in equal proportions, on each flank of the halberdiers: half the musketeers on each flank of the pikes; half the archers on each flank of the musketeers, and the harquebusiers (whose arms were much lighter than the muskets then in use) in equal proportions on each flank of the company for skirmishing.[1] It was customary to unite a number of companies into one body, called a REGIMENT, which frequently amounted to three thousand men: but each company continued to carry a colour. Numerous improvements were eventually introduced in the construction of fire-arms, and, it having been found impossible to make armour proof against the muskets then in use (which carried a very heavy ball) without its being too weighty for the soldier, armour was gradually laid aside by the infantry in the seventeenth century: bows and arrows also fell into disuse, and the infantry were reduced to two classes, viz.: _musketeers_, armed with matchlock muskets, swords, and daggers; and _pikemen_, armed with pikes from fourteen to eighteen feet long, and swords.
In the early part of the seventeenth century Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden, reduced the strength of regiments to 1000 men. He caused the gunpowder, which had heretofore been carried in flasks, or in small wooden bandoliers, each containing a charge, to be made up into cartridges, and carried in pouches; and he formed each regiment into two wings of musketeers, and a centre division of pikemen. He also adopted the practice of forming four regiments into a brigade; and the number of colours was afterwards reduced to three in each regiment. He formed his columns so compactly that his infantry could resist the charge of the celebrated Polish horsemen and Austrian cuirassiers; and his armies became the admiration of other nations. His mode of formation was copied by the English, French, and other European states; but so great was the prejudice in favour of ancient customs, that all his improvements were not adopted until near a century afterwards.
In 1664 King Charles II. raised a corps for sea-service, styled the Admiral's regiment. In 1678 each company of 100 men usually consisted of 30 pikemen, 60 musketeers, and 10 men armed with light firelocks. In this year the King added a company of men armed with hand-grenades to each of the old British regiments, which was designated the "grenadier company." Daggers were so contrived as to fit in the muzzles of the muskets, and bayonets similar to those at present in use were adopted about twenty years afterwards.
Richard Cannon's Historical Record of the Eighteenth, or the Royal Irish Regiment of Foot opens with a General Order from 1836, mandating that each regiment's published account include formation details, stations, battles, casualties, and distinctions. This directive shapes the entire work: the narrative moves through decades in short, dated paragraphs, punctuated by official correspondence and transcribed orders. The regiment's movements—from Minorca to Flanders, from garrison duty to siege—are recorded with a steady attention to geography and command changes. Cannon rarely pauses for reflection; instead, he lets the sequence of postings and engagements speak for itself.
A Structure of Dated Paragraphs and Official Documents
The record proceeds year by year, often beginning with a simple date line (e.g., '1717', '1743'). Within each entry, Cannon blends narrative summary with quoted orders or letters. For instance, the 1745 account of Fontenoy and the subsequent siege of Ostend includes a detailed description of the garrison's inadequate defenses and the governor's capitulation, but the tone remains factual. The effect is cumulative: the reader sees the regiment's service as a series of discrete episodes, each anchored to a specific location and command. The preface and general orders at the start establish a bureaucratic frame, reminding us that this is an official history, not a personal memoir.
Recurring Images: Reviews, Discipline, and Royal Approbation
Throughout the excerpts, the regiment is repeatedly 'reviewed' by senior officers or royalty. In 1743, it was reviewed by Lord Tyrawley; in 1744, by the Duke of Cumberland, who expressed 'approbation' of its 'discipline and good appearance.' Such moments serve as markers of the regiment's standing. The language of discipline—'good appearance,' 'great reputation'—appears alongside mentions of marching, embarking, and mounting guard. These reviews are not merely ceremonial; they are evidence of the regiment's readiness, a theme that recurs from the opening General Order's emphasis on 'zeal and ardour.'
Movement Between Scenes: Garrison, Siege, and Transport
The record's rhythm is defined by movement: from Taunton to Exeter, from Minorca to Gibraltar, from Gravesend to Ostend. Cannon often specifies the mode of transport—'embarked on board of Dutch billanders,' 'removed on board of transports'—and the precise sequence of ports. The 1745 Ostend episode is typical: the regiment marches to Antwerp, sails to Flushing, transfers to other ships, and arrives at a town 'abandoned by the inhabitants.' The geography is precise, but the human experience is left implicit. The reader must infer the strain of such journeys from the accumulation of detail.
The Siege of Ostend: A Case Study in Official Narrative
The Ostend account (1745) is the longest continuous episode in the excerpts. Cannon notes the garrison's inadequate numbers, the neglected fortifications, and the Austrian governor's failure to flood the surrounding country. The capitulation is described without judgment: 'after holding out until the ammunition was nearly expended, and the guns of the fortress dismounted, the governor capitulated.' The terms allowed the garrison to march to the allied army. This passage illustrates how Cannon handles defeat—factually, with no commentary on blame or heroism. The focus remains on the sequence of events and the official record.
Cannon's record offers a bureaucratic lens on military history: it values precision over drama, and official approbation over personal valor. Readers interested in the logistics of 18th-century British regiments—their postings, reviews, and sieges—will find a wealth of dated detail. The work's structure rewards those who read across entries, noting how the same patterns of movement and discipline recur. It is less a narrative than a ledger of service, and its value lies in that very restraint.
Reading about those eighteenth-century soldiers, I kept thinking how different lives can run on parallel tracks. That same quiet ache for understanding, for being remembered, stayed with me afterward. It felt a bit like how I came away from The Two Spies: Nathan Hale and John André — Reading Notes, those two young men caught up in something far larger than themselves.
There are no reviews for this eBook.
How did this book work for you?
Your answers remain private and are stored only in this browser.