History of the Royal Regiment of Artillery, Vol. 1: Compiled from the Original RecordsDuncan, Francis
History
History of the Royal Regiment of Artillery, Vol. 1: Compiled from the Original Records
Duncan, Francis
Great Britain. Army. Royal Regiment of Artillery
On the 17th June, 1775, the Battle of Bunker's Hill, as it is called,
although Breed's Hill was the real scene of operations, (Bunker's Hill,
which was intended to be fortified, being considerably more distant from
Boston,) was fought; and in the batteries on Cop's Hill, and with the
guns actually on the field, five companies of the 4th Battalion were
present—Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8. Eight field-guns were actually in
action; but twelve accompanied the attacking force—four light 12-
pounders, four 5½-inch howitzers, and four light 6-pounders. The attack
was made under the fire of the guns, "The troops advancing slowly, and
halting at intervals to give time for the Artillery to produce some
effect."[33] In these words, the recently exploded traditions are
apparent, which wedded the Artillery to the infantry during an
engagement, instead of allowing it independent action. One statement is
made by Stedman, generally a most accurate writer, which it is difficult
to reconcile with Colonel Cleaveland's official report. "During the
engagement," writes the former, "a supply of ball for the Artillery,
sent from the Ordnance Department in Boston, was found to be of larger
dimensions than fitted the calibres of the field-pieces that accompanied
the detachment; an oversight which prevented the further use of the
Artillery." In opposition to this statement, Colonel Cleaveland's report
to the Master-General may be quoted. "At Bunker's Hill, I sent sixty-six
rounds to each gun, and not more than half was fired."[34] Had the
reason been that given by Stedman, Colonel Cleaveland was too truthful a
man to omit mentioning it. The Battle of Bunker's Hill was the Inkermann
of the American War. The British lost 1054 killed and wounded; the enemy
admitted a loss of 449. The latter had the advantage of an elevated and
entrenched position; the former fought in heavy marching order—on a hot
summer day—and had to ascend a steep hill in the face of a heavy and
continuous fire. The loss fell most heavily on those who met hand to
hand; the Artillery met with but little casualty. According to the 4th
Battalion records, Captain-Lieutenant Lemoine, Lieutenant Shuttleworth,
and nine matrosses were wounded; according to Colonel Cleaveland's MSS.,
this number was increased by Captain Huddlestone, whom he includes among
the wounded.
The English plan of attack was faulty, and the defence of the Americans
was admirable; but these facts merely rendered the victory of the
English troops more creditable. It was a barren victory—perhaps, even,
an injurious one. It did not save Boston from the blockade, which from
this day became more thorough, and it certainly encouraged the American
militia, who found with what effect they could fight against those
regular troops from whom they had hitherto shrunk a little, with a
species of superstitious dread.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account