# Don't Fire Until you see the Whites of their Eyes **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 14, 2006, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-fire-until-you-see-the-whites-of-their-eyes/348346 "2006-03-14T18:33:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-fire-until-you-see-the-whites-of-their-eyes/348346/21 "2006-03-14T22:07:11Z")
While ammo may have been low, not engaging the enemy at far range had another affect – helping keep muskets clean. If you dirty up your musket, firing times can be reduced from between two and three shots a minute to one. So waiting until a person has a reasonable chance of incurring a casualty-producing injury might be worth it. ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2006, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-fire-until-you-see-the-whites-of-their-eyes/348346/22 "2006-03-14T22:35:14Z")
I don’t think you can get any deeper into the popular unconsious than Schoolhouse Rocks! and they clearly state, in _The Shot Heard Round The World_, that the reason for the order was to conserve ammo. If I may quote: Now at famous Bunker Hill/ Although we lost, it was quite a thrill/ The rebel Colonel Prescott proved he was wise/ Outnumbered and low on ammunition/ as the British stormed their positon/ He said “Hold your fire until you see the whites of their eyes.” I don’t know anyone who thinks the order was given for “chivalrous” reasons. What an odd claim. ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2006, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-fire-until-you-see-the-whites-of-their-eyes/348346/23 "2006-03-15T03:43:34Z")
Just wanted to add that any soldier, whether he sees whites of eyes or not, will fire when his lieutenant shouts, “Fire!” That was probably to prevent the soldiers from firing before the order was given. BTW Trevelyan backs up the myth, for what that’s worth. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2006, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-fire-until-you-see-the-whites-of-their-eyes/348346/24 "2006-03-15T03:47:32Z")
Another person joining in who’s never heard the idea that chivalry was a supposed factor until now. If this is supposed to be part of the myth it’s pretty poorly publicized. ---
**Author:** ![Can\_Handle\_the\_Truth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Can\_Handle\_the\_Truth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Can_Handle_the_Truth)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2006, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-fire-until-you-see-the-whites-of-their-eyes/348346/25 "2006-03-15T04:01:18Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > He thinks it’s meant to give the idea that this was a chivalrous war, where people saw the faces of those they were killing, a Romantic war, and not a faceless mechanical killing machine struggle. This theory of Ray Raphael’s is so ignorant that it calls into question his qualifications to write the book in the first place. What other obvious stuff has he misunderstood? “Founding Myths” indeed! ---
**Author:** ![Civil\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d78d45/32.png) [@Civil\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Civil_Guy)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2006, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-fire-until-you-see-the-whites-of-their-eyes/348346/26 "2006-03-15T04:30:01Z")
Um, er, I know next to nothing about this myself. Could only point a musket to the right hemisphere. Maybe. But if we’re talking myths, I thought that one of the myths was that several of the doughty Minutemen were woodsmen hunters, eagle-eyed, trained by friendly indians, able to dust the britches of 'coon at incredible distances. Sure, this is hype, but is there any truth to the idea that the colonists would have had just a little more experience with hunting than would the Brits / Hessians? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2006, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-fire-until-you-see-the-whites-of-their-eyes/348346/27 "2006-03-15T04:49:22Z")
Almost certainly not. It’s an imperfect resource, but it’s the one I have in hand at the moment. Garry Wills’ _A Necessary Evil_, in the course of talking about the history of the Second Amendment, devotes several pages to militias and guns. > [@](#): > > There was a drastic shortage of guns… there is overwhelming evidence that a majority of males did not own usable guns. The colonies repeatedly legislated that all men should get of be given guns, and just as repeatedly complained that this had not been accomplished… A captain of the New Hampshire militia reported in 1775 than ‘not one-half our men have arms,’ and a militia officer in Virginia said that he had a stand of a thousand guns, but that none of them worked… > > If guns were not omnipresent, then obviously the skill in their use was not widespread either… Why were so many guns broken… Guns were mainly made of iron at the time, and interior rusting of barrels and parts would take place unless guns were cleaned and maintained. Obviously, not enough people kept them in regular use to prevent this from occurring. … > > Benjamin Thompson, a Continental soldier [wrote] “Instead of being the best marksmen in the world and picking off every Regular that was to be seen, there is scarcely a regiment in camp but can produce men that can beat them in shooting, and the army is now universally convinced that the continual firing which they have kept up by the week and month together has had no other effect than to waste their ammunition and convince the King’s troops that they are not really so formidable.” Possibly a few frontier marksmen were useful in a few odd situations, but the glory of the American amateur rifleman is just another patriotic myth. Soldiers trained and practiced in the use of arms were far better shots than towndwellers or farmers. ---
**Author:** ![Malodorous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e47774/32.png) [@Malodorous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malodorous)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2006, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-fire-until-you-see-the-whites-of-their-eyes/348346/28 "2006-03-15T05:04:58Z")
> [@Exapno Mapcase](#): > > Those who wanted to mythify the situation always did so to emphasize the courage and fortitude of the colonists. Which works for me. The sight of a real army advancing toward a group of amateurs is shit-staining frightening. The natural desire would be to fire as soon as one could, and then either have time to shoot again or run away as seems best, probably the latter. This really did happen over and over again with militia during the war. Everyone from Washington on down were absolutely scathing in their contempt of local militia troops. This has always been my interpretation of the meaning of the story as well. This was the first major battle of the war, and many in Britan imagined the Continentals would fire a few disorganzied shots and break as soon as they saw an organized army coming up the hill after them. That the Americans had the organization and bravery to hold their fire till the enemy was almost on them, then keep fighting till they were out of ammo, demonstrated the opposite. I half remember a quote from the other side that hinted at the same theme. Some British officer saying that Bunker Hill showed the American’s would not break easily but fight “so long as they have ball and powder”. Anyone else remember something like this. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2006, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-fire-until-you-see-the-whites-of-their-eyes/348346/29 "2006-03-15T12:52:28Z")
> [@](#): > > This theory of Ray Raphael’s is so ignorant that it calls into question his qualifications to write the book in the first place. What other obvious stuff has he misunderstood? “Founding Myths” indeed! I have to re-iterate, as I have since the OP, that I’m not asking “Why did they say DFUYSTWOTE?” (which a lot of people seem to be suggesting answers to), and neither is Raphael. I don’t want to give the impression that he’s saying that Israel Putnam or whoever didn’t want to fire too early out of a sense of misplaced chivalry – no one is saying that. Raphael is asking why this particular piece of advice, out of all the ones given that day, is the one cast in stone as part of the legend. According to him, it hasn’t been part of the story since the very beginning, and, in fact, it doesn’t first appear until a great many years after the actual battle (although it can be documented that the order was given that day). His interpretation that it was intended to give a certain chivalric character to the Americans that day is what I question. I never got that sense at all. Several of his other suggestions seem reasonabvle and wel buttressed with facts, but occasionally he goes off on a high horse of indignation over how he _thinks_ people are misinterpreting history that doesn’t gibe with the way I see it, or the world. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2006, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-fire-until-you-see-the-whites-of-their-eyes/348346/30 "2006-03-15T15:37:03Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > I have to re-iterate, as I have since the OP, that I’m not asking “Why did they say DFUYSTWOTE?” (which a lot of people seem to be suggesting answers to), and neither is Raphael. Raphael is asking why this particular piece of advice, out of all the ones given that day, is the one cast in stone as part of the legend. . That’s unanswerable. I’d guess it was because it showed that the Yanks had cojones, and it took balls to wait until the Brits (notorious for good bayonet work) got close. Nothing to do with chivalry, just bravery. One thing dudes also forget to consider is that loading a black-powder muscket was fiddly. There were many steps, and it was easy to screw one up, especially if you were under stress or poorly trained. Thus, the first volley, where the men could take their time- and the non-coms could check to make sure things were right- was often much more effective than later volleys. Thus, you don’t want to waste that first volley. In fact, I have heard that almost every time in later volleys, you’d see some nervous recuits ramrod go shooting off, as he forgot to remove it before firing. Some muskets were found after battles that had been loaded over & over but not fired (perhaps it was a misfire, flintlocks are prone to such), with many loads plugging up the barrel. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2006, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-fire-until-you-see-the-whites-of-their-eyes/348346/31 "2006-03-16T04:05:33Z")
My wild assed guess is that the reason this line was remembered was not because of any particular metaphorical signifigance. I think it was just a colorful expression that had a certain usefulness as an idiom that could be applied in a number of situations. So it was memorable and it caught on. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2006, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-fire-until-you-see-the-whites-of-their-eyes/348346/32 "2006-03-16T06:15:14Z")
Keep in mind that when you are in a musket line, you fire when: a) the commander shouts fire b) someone else fires. Thus, your average musketline will fire at the rate of the most jittery soldier, not the average one. So even if 99% of the soldiers could be trusted to make a sensible judgement as to when to fire, saying DFUYSTWOTE stops the most jittery of soldiers from firing until the commander is ready. ---
**Author:** ![OtakuLoki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ac8455/32.png) [@OtakuLoki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OtakuLoki)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2006, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-fire-until-you-see-the-whites-of-their-eyes/348346/33 "2006-03-16T08:20:22Z")
Never, ever heard that it was a chivalous battle or war. You might make that claim for the latter war, with the Colonial Line troops. But the training I got when I marched to Concord as part of my hometown’s militia one year made it clear that we were reenacting irregular troops, with all the nastiness that implies. The Battle of Bunker (Breeds) Hill always seemed to me to be an American version of Metsada: A defeat, but one that cost the victors more than they gained. Not least of which being their reputation. Up til that time the attitude of both the British and their troops was that if only the rabble would stand still and fight like men, they’d be wiped out for little cost - it was just the unfair and cowardly irregular tactics being used that made for such difficulties. The Battle of Bunker Hill put paid to that myth. Certainly nothing I can recall from my years in school implied anything different. DFTYSTWOTE is dramatic, and desperate. That’s all I’d ever thought about it. As for the first question asked: Not for me. 10 yards still seems far to be thinking I’d be able to see whites of an eye. But eyes are something I’m terrible about noticing anyways. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2006, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-fire-until-you-see-the-whites-of-their-eyes/348346/34 "2006-03-16T12:47:28Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > Keep in mind that when you are in a musket line, you fire when: > a) the commander shouts fire > b) someone else fires. > > Thus, your average musketline will fire at the rate of the most jittery soldier, not the average one. So even if 99% of the soldiers could be trusted to make a sensible judgement as to when to fire, saying DFUYSTWOTE stops the most jittery of soldiers from firing until the commander is ready. Well… you’re partly right I don’t know if I’d put it like that. Back then, the normal technique was to stand in something like a 12x12 formation, and each line would fire by a cadence count. However the colonials obviously did not fight in the formations of antiquity or fire by the numbers… thus they had to come up with a different guideline for when to start firing. AND they were short on ball and powder. Hence, the obvious. ---
**Author:** ![Quercus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/7ab992/32.png) [@Quercus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quercus)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2006, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-fire-until-you-see-the-whites-of-their-eyes/348346/35 "2006-03-16T19:05:25Z")
Based only on Cal’s description I don’t think Raphael is necessarily that far off on why the phrase has stayed in the popular imagination – that it evokes a romantic feeling that glorifies the rebel army. As already stated, of course the order was not made out of any concern for fair play or respect for one’s enemy. It was never chivalrous in that sense. But for those telling and hearing the story, the phrase does paint a scene of desperate but brave men, using all their resources of intelligence and bravery, fighting against heavy odds and at great risk, just for the principals of freedom. And it doesn’t get much more capital-R Romantic than that, does it? ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2006, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-fire-until-you-see-the-whites-of-their-eyes/348346/36 "2006-03-16T19:19:38Z")
> [@Exapno Mapcase](#): > > Almost certainly not. > > It’s an imperfect resource, but it’s the one I have in hand at the moment. Garry Wills’ _A Necessary Evil_, in the course of talking about the history of the Second Amendment, devotes several pages to militias and guns. > > Possibly a few frontier marksmen were useful in a few odd situations, but the glory of the American amateur rifleman is just another patriotic myth. Soldiers trained and practiced in the use of arms were far better shots than towndwellers or farmers. Then why were the losses so one-sided at Oriskany and Saratoga? Are you also saying that a popular American tactic was not to shoot early (because their rifles had longer ranges than the British muskets), then retreat when the Redcoats got close (because the Brits were better at close range, and for that matter, most Americans didn’t have bayonets)? Because I thought that was pretty well established. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2006, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-fire-until-you-see-the-whites-of-their-eyes/348346/37 "2006-03-16T23:37:59Z")
> [@bup](#): > > Then why were the losses so one-sided at Oriskany and Saratoga? I don’t understand what point you’re making. Did militia troops fight at these battles? Yes, they did. But how well did they fight? And what one-sided losses in battle are you referring to? [Battle of Oriskany](http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1299.html). > [@](#): > > Meanwhile, an American relief force was dispatched from nearby Fort Dayton with 800 militia soldiers under the command of Brigadier General Nicholas Herkimer. He approached cautiously and attempted to coordinate a strike against St. Leger with soldiers in Fort Schuyler; that effort failed to materialize and Herkimer was goaded into precipitous action by his men. > > On August 6, the American relief column descended onto a narrow path in a ravine near Oriskany Creek. A 1,200-man detachment from St. Leger’s army, mostly Mohawks and Loyalists, was lying in wait. The initial volley cut down most of the American leadership, including Herkimer who sustained a serious leg wound. He had his men prop him up against a tree and continued to direct the battle. Despite his efforts, the Americans were eventually forced from the field. > > Both sides suffered heavy losses at Oriskany. This was not a victory for the Americans, even if St. Leger eventually gave up his siege. And the militia’s performance was problematic. [Battle of Freeman’s Farm](http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1303.html) > [@](#): > > Burgoyne followed a risky strategy of dividing his force into three columns; two were to proceed through the woods toward Bemis Heights and the other was to follow the main road that paralleled the Hudson. The willingness to split his force and imperil communications underscored Burgoyne’s continuing contempt of the Americans’ military abilities… The British had suffered in excess of 500 casualties, while the Americans had sustained more than 280. [Battle of Bemis Heights](http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1305.html) > [@](#): > > British pulled back and saw their meager ranks further depleted by desertions, the American ranks swelled. By mid-October, Gates’ army, numbering somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 men, surrounded Burgoyne’s slowly starving troops. Those two battles of Saratoga were won mostly because the Americans had a superior defensive position that Burgoyne insisted upon attacking. The Americans ended up bringing in more soldiers and surrounding the British, not mentioned on that page. The only evidence I can find for a marksmen position is the following: > [@](#): > > On October 7, Burgoyne led a 1,500-man reconnaissance-in-force venture to locate American forces. He felt compelled to attempt a breakthrough because his supplies and troop morale were diminishing daily. Gates, for his part, uncharacteristically chose to confront the enemy and dispatched Daniel Morgan and his riflemen, along with troops under major generals Enoch Poor and Ebenezer Learned. Badly outnumbered, the British ranks broke on several occasions, but were rallied by the highly competent Simon Fraser. Arnold, who had been instructed not to participate in the battle, entered the fray in violation of his orders. He recognized the valuable role being played by Fraser and brought him to the attention of Morgan; in short order one of Morgan’s marksmen mortally wounded the British commander, draining much of the spirit from the remaining soldiers. Here militia fought alongside of troops under capable generals. But these early battles were not typical of the war as a whole. Both sides learned that fighting in wilderness was not a good tactic, and the Americans placed more and more importance on their own trained troops as the war went on. I said that frontier marksmen were useful in some odd situations. These were odd, because they did not reoccur and the war went in a different direction. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2006, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-fire-until-you-see-the-whites-of-their-eyes/348346/38 "2006-03-17T04:25:16Z")
Coming into this thread rather late. Can anyone tell me when this story about DFUYSTWOTE first appears. I can find cites for it in the 1820’s, but referring to 1818. I’ll try to offer some more info. Back tomorrow night. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dont-fire-until-you-see-the-whites-of-their-eyes/348346.md?page=1)