Previous Article________________________________Contents___________________________________Next Article

In modern histories of strategic thought, 18th-century Britain is largely ignored. Apart from Henry Lloyd, whose career was essentially Austrian, and whose background of disloyalty rendered him suspect, there is a great void, encompassing one of the most successful military powers of the century.

In fact, although they may have been somewhat derivative in their ideas, there was a significant group of British writers about military matters, who were printed for the most part by either T Millar or T & J Egerton of the Military Library Whitehall.¹ They were interested in improved military education, in professionalisation, in military history, and in the whole military art, up to and including strategy.

One of the earliest of these writers, as well as one of the most prolific, was Captain Thomas Simes, the author of at least six books on varying aspects of the art of war.²

Simes began writing as a charitable endeavour to benefit orphans of Irish soldiers.³ He had, like many another writer on military matters, a far from glittering career. Despite experience in Cumberland's army, and apparently in Sardinia, he was "an old subaltern" who rose slowly and only as far as the rank of Captain. His brief moment of glory as acting Commander of the Queen's Regiment of Foot appears to have foundered in disputes over the Chaplaincy.⁴ The scandal and rumour-mongering after the elopement of his wife with her 'pock-marked lover', which he, himself, did much to publicise, was not especially helpful to his prospects of higher employment.⁵ He seems to have taken refuge in his books.

In the relatively safe world of military literature he prospered. He was multilingual, read widely, and had an encyclopaedic knowledge of the profession, and of the technical aspects of warfare. He had a strong mechanical sense (and indeed had at least one invention to his credit),⁶ and a fine eye for the visual which displayed itself in apt illustrations. He could accumulate minutiae and organise them thoroughly. He defined his terms carefully, and acknowledged his sources. He saw the need to articulate general principles, and did so where he thought he had discovered them. He found little difficulty in getting subscribers and publishers for his work, and he was favourably reviewed.

Simes, whose reading of Enlightenment literature sat rather uneasily with his political conservatism and Puritan moralism, believed that war was rooted in human nature, and in the state of society into which man had entered. It was governed by laws, some of which could be garnered from the literature of the past, others of which were yet to be discovered.⁷

Wars could be won, without recourse to battle, as a result of such factors as disease and climate, or by small-scale incremental advantages in campaigns of attrition. Nevertheless battle was the most effective way of conclusively winning a war, and once entered into should be conducted with maximum force, and followed by relentless pursuit.⁸

Simes favoured small professional armies and limited war.⁹ Large armies were impractical, for logistical and organisational reasons, and total war was a barbarous legacy of Goths and Vandals.¹⁰

Factors which enabled success in war included sound information about the opposition, its commander, and the terrain, an able Commander backed by experienced well-read officers, good man management including humane treatment and regular pay, sound morale, careful planning, well-organised communications and logistics, concentration of maximum force at the most appropriate point, and the skilful use of stratagem and surprise.¹¹

Most of Simes' thought is derivative and orthodox, and the novelty is mostly to be found in the detail. He saw the need for speed and mobility, for example, and canvassed the possibility of living off the land...but with suitable payment except in extremity. He seems to have placed equal emphasis on better transport teams and more portable food (being a great advocate of biscuit), as potential solutions.¹²

Occasional allusions, frustratingly brief, show that he saw the possibilities involved in conscription and the use of irregulars. He was also aware, as his contemporaries in France and Germany were not, of the difficulties involved in war for a constitutional state with a largely independent media.¹³

In general though, the distinctiveness of his work lies in the combination of ideas, rather than their originality. His cast of thought could never be confused with that of de Saxe or Frederick the Great, however many of their ideas he may have borrowed.

Simes was seen as a leading expert in his day, and his influence was probably substantial even if it has been rarely acknowledged. His work was published in the United States as well as Britain. His books were produced in a portable edition for easy transport in military portmanteaux.¹⁴ At least one ran to three editions. Another was very favourably reviewed in the Critical Review.¹⁵

The subscribers lists give some idea of who purchased his work. Subscribers included numerous junior officers who presumably took their profession seriously. Those in authority also offered strong support. The Military Medley was backed by 20 peers, 17 MPs, two Field-Marshals (one of them the Commander in Chief), and 20 generals. A Treatise on Military Science was dedicated to the King by express permission, and purchased by 20 peers, 24 MPs, 26 generals, and such notabilities as the Governor of Virginia and the Secretary of War.¹⁶

Nor was Simes's influence confined to Britain. An incomplete copy of The Military Guide was rushed by the American publisher to General Washington in June 1775, about the time Washington was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army. The book was still in use, and regarded as contraband, at the time of the American Civil War.¹⁷

Clearly Simes, and others like him such as Lochee and Townshend did exert some influence over the evolution of Anglo-Saxon military thought and practice, even if this was more at the level of professional training than of strategic thought. They deserve rescuing from the obscurity into which the outcome of the American War of Independence, and the onset of the Napoleonic revolution, so quickly consigned them.

Endnotes

1. Thomas Simes, The Military Guide for Young Officers, 3rd edition (London, 1781). Attached list of books printed by T & J Egerton , endpaper 1.

2. The Military Medley Containing the Most Necessary Rules and Directions for Attaining a Complete Knowledge of the Art (Dublin, 1767); The Military Guide for Young Officers (London, 1772); A Military Course for the Government and Conduct of a Battalion (London, 1777); The Military Instructor for Non-Commissioned and Private Men of the Infantry (London, 1778); A Treatise on Military Science which Comprehends the Grand Operations of War and General Rules for Conducting an Army in the Field (London, 1780); The Regulator or Instructions to Form the Officer and Complete the Soldier (London, 1780). A New Military, Historical and Explanatory Dictionary appears to have been published as a separate work only in America. Whether The Complete Judge Advocate, announced as being in the press, was ever published, is doubtful.

3. The Military Medley, 2nd edn, (Dublin, 1768), p. iv. It raised 200 pounds.

4. Military Science, pp. 11. 311. The Regulator, p. 90.

5. A True History of an Unfortunate Elopement in a Series of Letters by T[homas] S[imes], Esq., (London, 1770).

6. The Regulator, prefatory note. Military Science, pp. 327-328.

7. Military Science, p. 33; The Regulator, pp 1-5.

8. Military Science, pp. 6, 50-51, 222.

9. Ibid., pp. 132, 148.

10. Ibid., pp. 7, 82, 215.

11. Military Medley, 2nd edn., pp. 12, 106-109, 189-190, 193. Military Science, pp. 15-16, 49-51, 116, 163, 238-239, 252-254.

12. Military Science, pp. 8, 9, 316.

13. Ibid., pp. 68, 311.

14. A Portable Military Library, 4 vols., (London, 1792); A New Military, Historical and Explanatory Dictionary, (Philadelphia, 1782); The Military Guide for Young Officers, (Philadelphia, 1776).

15. Critical Review, May 1780.

16. Military Medley, 2nd edn., List of Subscribers. Military Science, List of Subscribers.

17. Thomas Simes, The Militay Guide for Young Officers, (Philadelphia, 1776). Volumes from the Library of George Washington, Rare Books Collection, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles: http://weezer.1mu.edu/spcoll/washing.html.

Bibliography

Critical Review, May 1780.

Simes, Thomas, The Military Guide for Young Officers, 3rd edition (London, 1781).

___________, The Military Medley Containing the Most Necessary Rules and Directions for Attaining a Complete Knowledge of the Art (Dublin, 1767)

___________, The Military Guide for Young Officers (London, 1772)

___________, A Military Course for the Government and Conduct of a Battalion (London, 1777)

___________,The Military Instructor for Non-Commissioned and Private Men of the Infantry (London, 1778);

___________,A Treatise on Military Science which Comprehends the Grand Operations of War and General Rules for Conducting an Army in the Field (London, 1780);

___________,The Regulator or Instructions to Form the Officer and Complete the Soldier (London, 1780).

___________,A True History of an Unfortunate Elopement in a Series of Letters by T[homas] S[imes], Esq., (London, 1770).

___________, A Portable Military Library, 4 vols., (London, 1792)

___________, A New Military, Historical and Explanatory Dictionary, (Philadelphia, 1782)

___________,The Military Guide for Young Officers, (Philadelphia, 1776).

Previous Article________________________________Contents___________________________________Next Article