"Tricorne Hat": How Accurate is this Term?

A Gaggle of Hats

Dear Reader,

There is no more iconic symbol and image of the eighteenth century than the three-cornered, or Tricorne, hat. Americans imagine their founding fathers wearing such hats, it is the hat of Frederick and Catherine the Great, George II and III; it is the hat worn in the art of William Hogarth and David Morier. Today, the image of people wearing tricorne hats is utilized by historic sites, media companies, and football teams.

Detail of a portrait of Frederick II of Hesse-Cassel, (DHM)

This post is not an effort to get into the various historic styles and designs of the so-called Tricorne hat. Skilled artisans such as M. Brenckle, Geo. Franks, and Andy Kirk have brought the reproduction of the cocked hat to an art form, and are highly familiar with the intricacies of shaping and cocking these hats. Once again, Matt Keagle's work is perhaps the best place to turn for the military material culture of the eighteenth century. These historians, artisans, and makers have provided many resources for those seeking to better understand this particular type of eighteenth-century hat. Rather, this post is an effort to understand how a term which was not used in the eighteenth century, "tricorne hat" has overwhelmingly dominated our language, obscuring the original English-language term for this hat: "cocked hat."  Should we continue to use this term, if it  was not employed by contemporaries? I'll first offer some reasons why the term could be replaced with more accurate language, and then provide a brief rejoinder in defense of the tricone.

George II by artist David Morier

1) The term "tricone hat" was not used in the eighteenth century. 

The earliest English language usage of the term tricorne hat (and I am open to correction if you can date it earlier) appears to be in the mid-nineteenth century, with many examples from the 1860s and 1870s. In French and German, the term appears as early as the 1830s.[1] So, if people living in the eighteenth century did not call these hats, "tricorne hats" what did they call them?

P. J. de Loutherbourg simply used the term "hat" to describe this headgear

The eighteenth-century three-cornered hat, the "cocked hat", was ubiquitous across Europe. Perhaps not surprisingly, many contemporaries simply called this design a "hat", as it was the most common form of male headwear across much of the eighteenth century. Where more specialized terms existed, they usually described specific hat designs.

Englishmen occasionally used the term, "three-cornered" when describing their hats in contrast to the hats of other cultures, but did not use the term tricorne.[2] Perhaps surprisingly to us, they used the term "three-cornered cap" more frequently than hat. By the end of the eighteenth century, the term, "three cornered hat" became more common, as contemporaries tried to distinguish this garment from other emerging sorts of headwear.[3]

British Military-Style Cocked Hat, 1750s (M. Brenkle)

In English, the term "cocked hat" was used to refer to three pointed hats. This term referred to their method of design: there were multiple ways of "cocking" a hat to produce a variety of different styles. Again, the most common term employed was simply "hat", but "cocked hat" was used when further explanation was required.[4] A dictionary of 1758 gives this entry for "Slouched: As a slouched hat. A Hat not cocked up."[5]

2) The modern term "tricorne hat" brings together a group of hats which contemporaries often viewed as distinct.   

Reproduced Hat of the 8th Regiment of Foot (M. Brenkle)
This hat appears to be tending towards the Ramilies/l'androsmane style

There was a great variety in the types of cocked hats worn in the eighteenth century, and these hats possessed different names across the continent. By the 1780s, for example, the various languages of Europe developed terms for styles of cocked hats. The Austrian military leader Ludwig Andreas von Khevenhüller was associated with a particular style, late in the century the French spoke of a "chapeau à l'androsmane," and the British talked of the Monmouth cock and Ramilies cock.[6] The English referred to the style of hat worn by the French ambassador as, "Nivernois" style, after the name of the ambassador.[7]  A poem from 1756 indicated that "a fierce cock'd hat, and modish ramilie" was the necessary headgear of a young soldier.[8]  Late in the century, a French style-tract commented: "The Englishmen may be represented with the Androsmane style of cock, with a massive black-ribbon cockade worn on the left side."[9]

A variety of hats are on display in the Voelkertaefel, from left:
French, Italian, German, English, and Swedish 

All this points to a wide variety of styles, which evolved across the European continent during the eighteenth century. Lumping these hats together as "tricorne" hats may be a useful shorthand in some cases, but often obscures the rich complexity present across the decades and locales of eighteenth century Europe.

3) The term "tricorne" is used as shorthand for hats between 1700 and 1800, making the eighteenth-century appear static and monolithic to the general public.  

Much of the specialized language for cocked hats before 1780 was designed to differentiate various unique styles and cocks. Only at the end of the eighteenth century did the critics of tricorne hats begin to represent them as monolithic and similar. As it was a symbol of wealth and good standing, the popular mood began to turn against the three-cornered hat in the 1790s. An anonymous author wrote the following in The New-York Weekly Magazine:

Among the many things invented by man for his use, none perhaps is more ridiculous than the three-cornered hat at present used by some persons. That it affords but an inconsiderable shelter to the head, is a truth scarcely to be denied; and that the face of him who wears it remains exposed to the piercing rays of the sun, is equally true. If our ancestors deemed it a conveniency to wear the hats in question, experience teaches us at the present day, their great inutility: And shall we then willing smile on those customs which (tho' formerly practiced) proves at present highly injurious? No; Let us cosult our own feelings, and not the habits of former times.-- Common sense points out their inconsistency, and reason mocks the stupidity of him who madly submits to be ruled by custom, that tyrant of the human mind, to whose government three-fourths of this creation foolishly subscribe their assent. Again, the weight which is comprised in a hat of that size, is a sufficient argument for their abolition. Wherein then can the utility of such an unwieldy machine consist? Is not the round hat more becoming? And does it not finally prove to the head by far the  best covering? The contrary cannot be urged unless through prejudice or selfishness. That it looks respectable and sacred, may be urged in favour of it; to this I reply, that if to be impudent constitutes either of those characters, the three cornered hat has the great good fortune to be superior to the other. It may be further advanced in its favour, that by letting down its brings it will answer the purpose of an umbrella in a hot summer day: ture that for size it may, but where is the person that would not rather make use of the real than the fictitious machine? Why was the pains taken for the invention of an umbrella, if the hat could be made to answer the same views? Was it not because the hat attracting the rays of the sun, was found to be injurious to the eyes, and therefore recourse was had to a machine which proved not only shelter from the sun, but to the eyes far more beneficial. To conclude, nothing but a false pride, and a desire to be conspicuous, could ever induce a person thus inconsistently to use that which will finally prove his folly. -- TRYUNCULUS, New-York, July 7, 1796.[10] 

Just as the revolutionaries toppled the monarchies of Europe, the great push to end social deference finally destroyed the three-cornered hat.

recreated American cocked hats

Proponents of the term tricorne might offer some reasons for the terms continued usage. First of all, it is certainly an iconic term, which immediately connects to a wide audience. This is perhaps the best argument for continued usage of the term. Second, the term tricorne hat is a vivid linguistic descriptor: the meaning is instantly clear. The term "cocked hat" could bring a variety of images into one's mind, tricone, or three-cornered hat brings the meaning clearly into view. This isn't a fire-proof reason for employing the term, after all, it would be more linguistically descriptive to call 20th-century military tanks, "roller-shooters". Regardless, I am confident that the term "tricorne" will be used to refer to these hats for a long time to come.

The cocked hat is an iconic symbol of a fascinating historical era. Regardless of what you choose to call this hat, I hope this post has providing some thoughts on the precision of language when it comes to historical objects, and how terms which are completely ubiquitous today may not reflect the terminology contemporaries used to describe these objects.

If you enjoyed this post, or any of our other posts, please consider liking us on facebook, or following us on twitter. Consider checking out our exclusive content on Patreon. Finally, we are dedicated to keeping Kabinettskriege ad-free. In order to assist with this, please consider supporting us via the donate button in the upper right-hand corner of the page. As always:

Thanks for Reading, 

Alex Burns


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Anon, Archives historiques et littéraires du Nord de la France (Vol III, 1833) 45. Anon, Das Ausland: Eine Wochenschrift für Kunde, (Vol 6, 1833), 965.
[2]See, Mortimer Harley, The Harleian Miscellany, (1745) 555; Robert Ainsworth, Thesairis Linguae Latinae Compendiarius, (1752), 113; John Henry Grose, A Voyage to the East Indies, (1757), 274; 
[3]See Tobias Smolett, The Critical Review, (1796), 406; Voltaire, The History of Candide, Translated from the French (1796), 42; Anon, "On the Three-Cornered Hat" The New-York Weekly Magazine, (Vol II, Wednesday, July 20th, 1796), 19.  
[4] See, Anon, The Gentleman's Magazine, (Vol XXIII, 1753), 187; Anon, The Batchelor: Or Speculations of Jeoffry Wagstaffe, Esq, (1769). 129.
[5] Anon, A Pocket Dictionary; Or Complete English Expositor, (1758), 361.
[6] See, Anon, The British Magazine, (1746) 309. Anon, The Gentleman's Magazine, (Vol XXVI, 1756) 490, Anon, Magasin des modes noevelles, (1787) 5; Anon, "The Spectator" Harrison's British Classicks, (Vol IV, Thursday, July 26th 1786) 251.
[7]William Hickey, Memoirs, (Vol I) 140.
[8]Anon, "The Spectator" Harrison's British Classicks, (Vol IV, Thursday, July 26th 1786) 251.
[9]Anon, Magasin des modes noevelles, (1787) 5;
[10]Anon, "On the Three-Cornered Hat" The New-York Weekly Magazine, (Vol II, Wednesday, July 20th, 1796), 19.  

Following the Armies: Contemporary Images of Military Women and Children in German Central Europe

A reenactor portraying a Prussian Soldatenfrau
late in the Seven Years War

Dear Reader,

Today, I would like to present several contemporary images of women who followed Germanic Armies during the Eighteenth Century. These women, often the wives of soldiers, traveled alongside the armies of Frederick the Great and Maria Theresa. The first four images come from the collection produced by Johann Christian Becher, Wahrhaftige Nachricht derer Begebenheiten drawn during the Seven Years War.

A Franconian Sutleress, Becher

The first woman, a sutler of some means, wears a red sleeved waistcoat and dark blue jacket and petticoat. Her shoes are obscured, but she wears a round, shallow-crowned felt hat with a red ribbon. Her cart/wheelbarrow contains a cask, bags, and she is pictured with a "Coffee Machine" according to a different version of the same image.  The cookware is not blackened. 

An Austrian Sutleress and her family 

There are some similar elements of dress in this image, showing a black felt round hat, likewise tied with a red ribbon (both are knotted on the right of the wearers' crown). This woman has three children, two walk barefoot, and the third is kept tied around the woman's body. Like the Franconian woman above, this woman wears a dark colored jacket with a bit of red at the sleeves. She appears to have a patterned apron and light colored petticoat with red striping. Her daughter carries a walking stick, bottle, and wine skin or draw-string bag, and has a pink sleeveless top over her shift, a green petticoat, and blue apron. Her son wears a round felt hat, worn knee breeches, and a cream woolen waistcoat. 

A Wuertemberger Soldier's Wife

This woman carries a small child on her head, tied to a basket. She has a straw hat, a long cream-colored woolen or linen frock coat, a black waistcoat, and a white cloth around her neck. Her apron is white with blue floral patterning, and she wears a blue petticoat. She has something strapped to her back and a small keg with a strap. 

A Grenadier's Wife from Mainz, her family and equipment 

This women wears a blue jacket and petticoat, her head is tied in a scarf, and she wears no hat. Her eldest daughter cares for a smaller child on the back of a donkey, in a grey top and petticoat with a light colored neck-cloth and straw hat. The woman appears to have light brown shoes, the daughter wears red shoes. The women leads the donkey and has a walking stick, and what appears to be a linen wallet on her back. 

A French Sutleress and a Hungarian Hussar's wife

The French sutleress (left) wears a brown brunswick or long jacket, what might be a military canteen or a glass bottle, a pink cap, a blue apron and green striped petticoat. The Hungarian woman wears a sleeveless green top, no discernible shirt, a loose head covering underneath a military-style laced cocked hat, a blue hussar's jacket, and a white striped petticoat. Somewhat memorably, she carries a strand of garlic in her right hand, and a chicken or some sort of fowl in her right hand. 

The next few images come from details of the military art of Hyacinth de La Pegna, an  artist who commemorated the Hapsburg victories of the Seven Years War. 

This image shows a Prussian soldier's wife with a blue jacket, red petticoat, and white cap. Her baby, on her back, is swaddled in green cloth. 

This woman, with an orange jacket, white shawl/neck cloth, and white cap wears a red petticoat and has her shirt sleeves tucked into the arms of her jacket. She appears to have some sort of wallet/blanket around her middle, held in her right hand. 

This painting shows Prussian women in states of relative undress as a result of the early morning surprise attack at Hochkirch in 1758. The woman on the right appears to have a white/rose colored cap, and she has her sleeves rolled up, and wears her stays. On the left, a women holds a child in while wearing similar clothing, but appears to have a brown/orange blanket of some sort draped around her. 

This scene, also from the downfall at Hochkirch, appears to show a woman in matching sleeveless top and petticoat fleeing from a tent with a blanket around her middle.  She wears a white cap, and sleeves rolled to above the elbow. 

Pro-Prussian Silesian Woman, surrender of Breslau

This image, taken from a commemorative print of the surrender of Breslau, shows a pro-Prussian Silesian woman, with a dark colored petticoat, light-colored jacket with a light-colored shawl and cap. 

The Begging Soldier's Wife, Daniel Chodowiekci

This image, by Prussian painter Chodowiecki, shows a women with a jacket, two military style cocked hats, a market wallet, some type of leather or linen bag, and a light colored petticoat. As a result of her market wallet, it is difficult to definitively address some of her clothing. 

From the above sources, it is clear that some women wore old or unused cocked hats, and occasionally wore military style coats/jackets. Patterned aprons and blue aprons appear in multiple images, as do petticoats with stripes near the bottom. 

If you enjoyed this post, or any of our other posts, please consider liking us on facebook, or following us on twitter. Consider checking out our exclusive content on Patreon. Finally, we are dedicated to keeping Kabinettskriege ad-free. In order to assist with this, please consider supporting us via the donate button in the upper right-hand corner of the page. As always:

Thanks for Reading, 

Alex Burns

Military Buckshot in the Mid-Eighteenth Century

Reenactors portray Maryland troops

Dear Reader,


Today, we are going to examine a particular type of ammunition used by eighteenth-century soldiers: buckshot. For those unfamiliar with the term, buckshot consists of smaller projectiles, which spread out after leaving the barrel of the weapon. It is often used in a shotgun today. In the eighteenth-century, German language speakers called this specialty ammunition Cartatschen-Patronen, which gives us the modern German term, Kartätschen-Patronen, a catch-all term for submunitions including grape-shot (Traubhagel).

It appears that while this type of ammunition was common amongst American, British, and French irregular forces, and it was utilized by American, Austrian, British, French and Russian regular troops as well. In the eighteenth-century, buckshot was used to help compensate for the smoothbore weapons in common use at the time. By firing more projectiles at the target, troops generated a larger wall of lead with which to damage enemy forces. Far from being an exclusively American innovation, this weapon was employed by multiple European regular armies. This post will examine the use of buckshot in the mid-eighteenth century. I want to thank Dr. Grzegorz  Podruczny for his advice and help with source material.

Most troops discussed in this post were not firing only buckshot, but rather a combination of both buckshot and musket ball ammunition. In English, this is called "buck and ball", (sometimes, "buck 'n' ball") ammunition.[1] Usually, this consisted of a regular cartridge with 2-3 buckshot attached to it. This would provide the best of both worlds: the larger ball could be effective at long ranges, while at 100 yards or less, the buckshot would begin to wound and mangle enemy soldiers. If you are wondering what one of these cartridges might look like, check out the artistic reconstruction below. With the round itself examined, let us look first at the use of buckshot in the Seven Years' War, and then during the American War of Independence.

A Provincial in Winter

This type of specialist round was employed by both sides in the French and Indian War. British officers believed that their French and Native Americans enemies exclusively used this type of ammunition. In October of 1757, a British officer recalled, "The enemy never fire a single ball, for they always load with six or seven smaller ones (which are called buck-shot) besides their usual musket-ball."[2] The same officer referred to being under buckshot fire as, "a dreadful shower."[3] By 1760, both the British and their provincial allies had followed suit. Describing a small engagement in Canada, John Knox reported that New England provincials, "advanced, very spiritedly, to the enemy, who were endeavoring to steal upon them; gave them a regular discharge of a brace of balls, besides buckshot from each piece, and sent them flying."[4] By the end of the war, it seems that both the British and Americans had begun to employ buckshot with increasing regularity. 

Austrian Reenactors 

At the start of the Seven Years' War Austrian infantrymen carried a total of 48 rounds of ammunition. Of those, twelve were buckshot rounds. It is unclear if these twelve rounds were buck and ball rounds (as pictured above) or specialized buckshot rounds designed to be loaded in addition to the regular round, as in the Russian practice (described below). Regardless, the Austrian army formalized ideas on use buckshot in their 1759 field manual. The Militär Feld-Regulament of 1759 indicated when facing enemy infantry, Austrian troops should use their buckshot rounds beginning at 100 yards, should definitely use them if enemy infantry attempted a bayonet attack. When facing enemy cavalry, the manual instructs the soldiers to reserve their buckshot fire until the charging horsemen have closed to 10 yards.[5]

Russian Infantrymen/Artillerymen of the Seven Years' War

In his 2008 book, Kiril Tatarnikov shows the Russian military issued buckshot cartridges to soldiers as standard relatively early. In 1715, Russian troops were issued 50 cartridges total, 30 will ball ammunition, and 20 with buckshot ammunition. [6] The Russian army of the Seven Years' War used buckshot to terrible effect at battles such as Zorndorf, Paltzig, and Kunersdorf. Indeed, the use of buckshot may help explain the incredible high casualties at battles like Zorndorf.  A Prussian recalled the battle of Zorndorf:

On our side, therefore, there were relatively little dead, but a great number of wounded. However, most of the wounded were able to convalesce with their regiments...every Russian infantryman loads a musket ball and an equal pack of buckshot. There are between 7-9 of these in a linen packet in the form of grapeshot. As a result of this, the Russians load quite slowly, as a Jäger loads his rifle. In the time it takes the Russians to load their weapons, the Prussians have fired three times. I address this only in passing. We have found signs of this buckshot in many of the wounded, because they bled freely, almost to death. I cannot say whether their balls are poisoned, but you have observed that the Russians even use heated shot to harm their enemies.[7]

Buckshot from archeology on the Kunersdorf battlefield. (Many thanks to Dr.
Grzegorz Podruczny for the image!)

Clearly, then, the Russians used a different sort of buck and ball ammunition, one where two distinct cartridges were loaded into the weapon. It is interesting that the Prussian soldier compares the additional time loading this ammunition to that of a Jägers' rifled weapon. After the Seven Years' War, Russian army would continue to use buckshot ammunition until the end of the Napoleonic Wars.[8] The British and fledgling American army would use this type of ammunition in the American War of Independence.

Reenactors portray American soldiers in the War of Independence

This ammunition was widely used by militiamen in the American War of Independence. When not using rifled weapons, militia troops increased their firepower and effectiveness through buck and ball ammunition.[9] Both Continental and militia troops used buck and ball ammunition at the Battle of Camden.[10] George Washington, possibly as a result of his experience in the French and Indian War, was a proponent of buck and ball ammunition. On October 6th, 1777, Washington circulated general orders that mandated, "Buckshot are to be put into all the cartridges that shall hereafter be made."[11] This decision came directly after the Battle of Germantown. Archaeology and documentary sources indicate that this order was indeed followed. The American predilection for buckshot continued into the War of 1812 era.

Soldier's Musket recovered from British shipwreck in St. Augustine, FL. 

The British, too, used buck and ball cartridges during the American War of Independence.[12] The musket above was photographed in a shipwreck near St. Augustine, Florida. Multiple American sources report suffering buckshot wounds when engaged with British regulars, particularly in the Southern Campaign of 1781. At the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, it is possible that both the Brigade of Guards and the 33rd Regiment were using this type of ammunition.[13] Although the British army never employed buck and ball as the standard ammunition, it appears that by the late war its use was quite common.

Thus, it would seem that buckshot was commonly used on many of the battlefields of the mid-eighteenth century. Rather than being a distinct practice unique to American backwoodsmen, the ammunition was used French troops in colonial Canada, and Austrian and Russians troops in Europe during the Seven Years' War. The American contribution to the use of buckshot ammunition was mandating its use, something that the British failed to do. It is an interesting coincidence that the two superpowers of the twentieth century, Russia and America, heavily employed buckshot during the eighteenth and early nineteenth-centuries. 

If you enjoyed this post, or any of our other posts, please consider liking us on facebook,  or following us on twitter. Finally, we are dedicated to keeping Kabinettskriege ad-free. In order to assist with this, please consider supporting us via the donate button in the upper right-hand corner of the page. As always:

Thanks for Reading,



Alex Burns



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Babits, Brenckle, and Howard, "Rifle Shot and Buck'n'Ball in the 1781 Southern Campaign," Paper presented to the 2005 Nathanial Greene Symposium.
[2] Knox, An Historical Journal, Vol 1, 54.
[3] Ibid, 91.
[4] Ibid, Vol 2, 280.
[5]Anon, Militär Feld-Regulament, articles 15, 18, and 19. (Manuscript is unpaginated).

[6] Kiril Tatarnikov, Русская полевая армия 1700-1730, (Moscow, 2008), 58. 
[7]Anon, Besondere Merkwürdigkeiten und Anekdoten aus Neudam in der Neumark, 29.
[8] Leo Bockeria, et al, "Russian war surgery in 1812," International Journal of Surgery, Vol 10, Issue, 10, 2012.
[9] Lawrence Babits, Devil of a Whipping, 13.
[10] Legg, et al, "Understanding Camden: The Revolutionary War Battle of Camden As Revealed Through Historical, Archaeological, and Private Collections Analysis," University of South Carolina Scholarly Commons, 2005.
[11] John Fitzpatrick (Eds), The Writings of George Washington, Vol 9, 313.
[12] Lawrence Babits, Devil of Whipping, 165n8.
[13] Lawrence Babits, Long, Obstinate, and Bloody, 166.

The Spanish Military in the 18th Century

The Storming of Fort George: Pensacola, Florida, 1781

Dear Reader,

English language historians gloss over the role and effectiveness of the Spanish military in the later Kabinettskriege period. Christopher Duffy, a leading authority on 18th century warfare, discusses the Spanish briefly in his otherwise excellent book, Military Experience in the Age of Reason. On page 21, he gives us German military thinker Scharnhorst's views on the Spanish:       

           "The Spaniards have never changed. Except for their hair, which is now powdered and curled, the soldiers remain in the same condition as seventy years ago. Their generals are totally ignorant of tactics, they owe their promotion to favoritism, or to long service in the garrisons, where their only occupation is to arrange the processions to the burnings at the stake, and so on." (Scharnhorst, 1782) 

Unfortunately, Scharnhorst's perception of the Spanish doesn't match up with the Spanish military's historical actions, especially in the early 1780s, when he published his account. While English language accounts tend to focus on the Spanish failures in the 18th century, the Spanish often succeed in combat operations, and showed a great talent for combined navy-army operations. In addition, the Spanish possessed a massive overseas empire, and in most cases, successfully defended their overseas holdings through an effective system of fortification. 

Early 18th Century Spain

The Spanish military record in the early 18th century reads like a litany of defeats and disasters. For a complete list of the wars of this period, click here. While Spain participated in many wars during the early 18th century, the most damaging to Spanish interests in the short term was the global War of Spanish Succession. The War of Spanish Succession created internal conflicts in Spain, as various factions chose to support either the Bourbon or Hapsburg candidate for the Spanish throne. This made excellent opportunity for expansion by smaller powers, who were jealous of Spanish holdings in the Americas. At the end of this war, the Bourbon candidate won out, but the Spanish were forced to give up huge swaths of territory. In Northern Europe, the Spanish Netherlands became the Austrian Netherlands. In the Mediterranean, the Spanish lost the Kingdom of Naples, the Duchy of Milan, Sicily, the Kingdom of Savoy, and the naval bases at Minorca and Gibraltar.

The War of the Quadruple Alliance in 1718 ended Spanish hopes of regaining significant Italian holdings. The  Anglo-Spanish war of 1727 quickly ended with no advantage to either side.  The War of Jenkins Ear in 1739, and its continuation in the War of Austrian Succession, saw the Spanish fight the British and their allies to a draw, with no territorial changes in the colonies. The Spanish soldiers saw some successes during this war, such as the Battle of Campo Santo in 1743. (Dale Wood, shout out to you.)
 During the Seven Years' War, the British gained Florida, but this was a result of the losses of Spanish allies, the French, who gave the Spanish the Louisiana territories to make up for the loss of Florida. While the British took Cuba and the Philippines during the actual fighting, these territories returned to Spanish control after the War.

The American Gulf Coast War

In the global war surrounding the American War for Independence, the Spanish reclaimed much of the key territory they had lost in the early 18th century. Along the Gulf of Mexico, the Spanish waged a successful war from 1779-1781, defeating the British forces in a number of confrontations on both land and sea. Thomas Chavez covers this portion of the war in his 2002 book, Spain and the Independence of the United States: An Intrinsic Gift. Chavez draws much needed attention to the Spanish role in the American War for Independence, and the book is an excellent read.

Thanks in part to the excellent command decisions of Bernardo de Galvez, the Spanish defeated the British at every turn in the campaign. The British (and German forces from Waldeck,) were eventually captured by the Spanish during the siege of Pensacola, depicted in the painting at the top of the post. On the right side of the painting, an African member of the Havana militia is shown charging into the breach with the grenadiers. With the growth of the New Military History in the scholarship surrounding the Revolution, I am surprised that no study of the ethnic minorities in the Spanish army is currently available.

In Europe, a French officer in Spanish service, Louis de Crillon, led the effort to retake the naval base of Mahon on the Mediterranean Island of Minorca. He was successful, and the war ended with the Spanish retaking of Florida and Minorca.

Castillo de San Marcos

Fortifications

The vast amount of Spanish fortifications in Latin America help explain Spain's continued grasp on her American Empire. Vauban style fortifications, or "Star-Forts," such as the Castillo de San Marcos in St. Augustine, Florida (above), or the Fortaleza San Carlos de la Cabana in Cuba (below), allowed the Spanish Empire to survive a period in the early 18th century when the Spanish army and navy were recovering from the War of Spanish Succession. Without the Castillo de Immaculate Concepcion in Nicaragua, the British forces under the direction of William Lyttelton might have taken Granada in 1762, splitting the Spanish overseas empire in two.

Fortaleza San Carlos de la Cabana

 Like Sweden, the Spanish Empire spent the majority of the 18th century in decline, struggling to return to a position of prominence. And, like the Swedes in the Russo-Swedish War of 1788, the Spanish experienced a resurgence in military capability at the end of the 18th century. However, the Spanish, unlike the Swedes, had significant fortifications to keep their holdings intact during the period of crisis.

When examining the Spanish military during the 18th century, historians should not be so quick to accept biased northern European observers at their word. Scharnhorst, as he lambasted the Spanish in 1782, failed to see that the Spanish had changed, and that under leaders like Galvez, they were capable of competing with, and succeeding against, the British.

Thanks for reading,


Alex