Historical Record of the Seventy-first Regiment, Highland Light Infantry Containing an Account of the Formation of the Regiment in 1777, and of Its Subsequent Services to — Edition Insights

(0 User reviews)   924
Cannon, Richard, 1779-1865 Project Gutenberg 2019 Not confirmed
Great Britain. Army -- History; Great Britain. Army. Regiment of Foot, 71st (Highland Light Infantry) Readers of public-domain and historical texts
Project Gutenberg digital edition en

Edition facts

Words 61,388
Reading time 267 min
Text sections 9

The source record for Historical Record of the Seventy-first Regiment, Highland Light Infantry Containing an Account of the Formation of the Regiment in 1777, and of Its Subsequent Services to — Edition Insights measures this digital text at 61,388 words, 4 hr 27 min estimated reading time, and 9 detected text sections.

The text analysis averages about 23.8 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.

An editorial note on Richard Cannon's regimental history, examining its official tone, precise battle narratives, and the tension between administrative record and human cost in the 71st Highland Light Infantry's campaigns.
Share
Editorial Edition Score 4.7/5

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.

Edition quality

Read the Text

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 Seventy-first Regiment, Highland Light Infantry opens with a royal command: King William IV ordered that an account of every regiment's services be published under the Adjutant-General's supervision. The preface declares that the army's character depends on 'the zeal and ardour' of its soldiers, framing the volume as both a record and a tool to inspire emulation. This official origin shapes every page, producing a narrative that is meticulous in detail but restrained in emotional register.

Official Language and Authorial Distance

Cannon writes from within the military establishment, and his prose reflects that position. The preface is signed by the Adjutant-General, John Macdonald, and the text frequently cites orders and official correspondence. The language is formal, almost bureaucratic: regiments are 'corps,' movements are 'manœuvres,' and casualties are listed as numbers. When describing the 71st's charge at Fuentes d'Onor, Cannon notes that the regiment 'suffered severely' but does not dwell on individual suffering. This restraint is a deliberate authorial choice, prioritizing institutional record over personal drama. The reader is given facts—ten officers and about a hundred men taken prisoner—but not the sounds or sights of battle. The effect is a history that feels authoritative yet distant, as if viewed through a telescope.

Precision in Battle Narrative

The account of the 71st at Fuentes d'Onor (3–5 May 1811) exemplifies Cannon's method. He traces the regiment's movements with geographical exactness: from Albergaria to the Duas Casas river, then into the village. The action is broken into phases: the initial French attack, the 71st's counter-charge under Lieutenant-Colonel Henry Cadogan, and the eventual withdrawal when French troops turned the right flank. Cannon specifies that the regiment 'retained its conquest that night and the whole of the next day' before being 'obliged to give way.' This step-by-step reconstruction gives the reader a clear sense of tactical flow, but the human cost is compressed into a single sentence: 'The Seventy-first suffered severely.' The contrast between the detailed choreography of battle and the terse acknowledgment of loss is striking.

The Regiment as Protagonist

Throughout the excerpts, the 71st Regiment itself is the central character. Cannon refers to it as 'the Seventy-first' or 'the corps,' treating it as a collective entity with a continuous identity. Individual officers appear only when their actions affect the regiment's story: Lieutenant-Colonel Cadogan is named leading the charge, but his personal history is absent. The regiment's movements—from Alquintrinha to Redinha to Fuentes d'Onor—are tracked with the care one might give a protagonist's journey. This collective focus is reinforced by the book's structure, which follows the regiment from its formation in 1777 through subsequent services. The reader is invited to see the regiment as a living thing, shaped by battles and marches, its 'character' built from official reports and casualty lists.

Silence and Selection in the Record

Cannon's history is as notable for what it omits as for what it includes. The excerpts contain no direct speech from soldiers, no descriptions of wounds or fear, no mention of the Portuguese civilians whose villages the armies passed through. The enemy, Marshal Massena, is described as retreating 'in a masterly manner,' a phrase that grants him tactical respect but no interiority. The author's selection of details—dates, place names, unit numbers—creates a clean, administrative version of war. Yet the very precision of the record hints at what is left out: the 'great loss' suffered by the 71st is stated but not dramatized. This silence is not a flaw but a feature of the genre. Cannon's task was to produce an official record, not a memoir, and his choices reflect the priorities of the Horse Guards.

Readers approaching this volume should expect a regimental biography written from the inside, with all the strengths and limitations that implies. The prose is lean, the facts are dense, and the narrative arc is determined by campaigns rather than characters. For those interested in the mechanics of nineteenth-century military history—how battles were recorded, how units were memorialized—Cannon's work offers a clear example of the genre. It rewards careful reading of its silences as much as its statements.

Reading Cannon’s regimental record, I lingered on how neatly every skirmish was filed away, the human weight of it softened by official prose. It made me recall a small manual I once kept, Night Operations for Infantry Compiled for the Use of Company Officers — Reading Companion, which felt far more honest about the quiet uncertainty of moving in the dark.

There are no reviews for this eBook.

0
0 out of 5 (0 User reviews )

Add a Review

Your Rating *
There are no comments for this eBook.

Reader reflection

What did you think of this book?

Answer a few questions and save a private reflection on this device.

Your progress 0 / 10
1

Have you finished this book?

2

What was your overall reaction to the book?

3

Is this a title you would suggest to others?

4

What was the reading difficulty like?

Related eBooks