The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]

The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

COLONIAL TIMES

Colonial Consciousness

Redcoat Questions

Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!

Screensize:

UserName:

Password:

Format Mode:

Format:

Videos:

Message Icon:

Message:

Smilies




		$computer woes {CW:_(}$

[quote][i]Originally posted by RedFraggle[/i]
[br]I've been doing a teensy bit of reading on British vs. provincial troops during the F&I War, and I have a few questions, if anyone is willing to indulge me.  Before I ask, though, let me say that I'm a total ignoramus when it comes to this topic, so my questions might be a bit silly![:I]

1. Troop Discipline
Judging from what I've been reading, the British regulars used very harsh punishments, amounting sometimes to hundreds of lashes among the rank and file men.  What I'm curious about is: one book stated that the British [i]officers [/i] "were not subject to corporal punishment."  But what if an officer, say a captain or a major, was charged with insubordination or caught brawling in the streets or something?  How would [i]he [/i] be disciplined?

2. Women
One book suggested that the only women present in army camps were disreputable sorts, like laudresses and prostitutes.  Would officers' wives or daughters ever travel with a regiment as (I think) they sometimes did in the case of navy men?

3. Uniforms
How accurate are the redcoat uniforms as depicted in [i]LOTM[/i]?  (Yes, I realize this is a silly question!)  Didn't some regiments differ in the type and colors of dress required, etc.?  If the uniforms in the movie [i]are [/i] fairly accurate, how is rank maintained by appearance?  (I.e., how do you tell a colonel from a major or a captain just by looking at him?)  Just curious, since there seem to be a lot of variations in uniform in the movie.  Some guys have red waistcoats, others have blue; some have white trim on their coats, some have yellow; and some have yellow cords on their shoulders while others don't.  The books I've been reading don't really say anything about dress.

I'd appreciate any answers to my (admittedly novice!) questions.  Thanks!  [:D]

[/quote]

Upload an Image File From Your PC For Insertion in Your Post

- HTML is OFF | Forum Code is ON

Check here to include your profile signature.

T O P I C R E V I E W
RedFraggle	Posted - February 08 2007 : 1:53:16 PM I've been doing a teensy bit of reading on British vs. provincial troops during the F&I War, and I have a few questions, if anyone is willing to indulge me. Before I ask, though, let me say that I'm a total ignoramus when it comes to this topic, so my questions might be a bit silly! 1. Troop Discipline Judging from what I've been reading, the British regulars used very harsh punishments, amounting sometimes to hundreds of lashes among the rank and file men. What I'm curious about is: one book stated that the British officers "were not subject to corporal punishment." But what if an officer, say a captain or a major, was charged with insubordination or caught brawling in the streets or something? How would he be disciplined? 2. Women One book suggested that the only women present in army camps were disreputable sorts, like laudresses and prostitutes. Would officers' wives or daughters ever travel with a regiment as (I think) they sometimes did in the case of navy men? 3. Uniforms How accurate are the redcoat uniforms as depicted in LOTM? (Yes, I realize this is a silly question!) Didn't some regiments differ in the type and colors of dress required, etc.? If the uniforms in the movie are fairly accurate, how is rank maintained by appearance? (I.e., how do you tell a colonel from a major or a captain just by looking at him?) Just curious, since there seem to be a lot of variations in uniform in the movie. Some guys have red waistcoats, others have blue; some have white trim on their coats, some have yellow; and some have yellow cords on their shoulders while others don't. The books I've been reading don't really say anything about dress. I'd appreciate any answers to my (admittedly novice!) questions. Thanks!
25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)
Steve S	Posted - August 02 2007 : 02:11:44 AM If it's anything like a bit later....remember Officer's needed the CO's permission to marry....which would rarely be granted to anyone under Captain....imagine the young subaltern's in an 18thcent Bachelor Officer's quarters & you get the idea....Also,as in the Revwar,I can see senior officer's families being left in the cities/towns when the regiment went on campaign...Lots of Garrisons were manned by Provincial units who served for one campaign,leaving the regulars for the field army....they didn't do long-term garrison duty until post-1763 & a unit would normally be split up between several locations. Steve
RedFraggle	Posted - August 01 2007 : 8:06:59 PM Here we go again! I'm back with another question. This one has to do with fort life. I know that the average enlisted man was quartered in a room in the barracks, sometimes with 10 or more other guys. And I know that there were separate officers' quarters and sometimes a separate house for the fort commander . . . but I'm assuming officers had to do a bit of sharing too (?). I looked at a few fort plans, and some of them show only four or five rooms marked "officers' quarters," which doesn't seem to be enough if every officer had his own room. All the pics of officers' quarters I can find online, however, invariably show a quaint little room with a fireplace, a desk, and single four-poster bed with poofy curtains. (I'm guessing that's for the show-and-tell purposes of tourism!) So my question is: How were officers really lodged at frontier forts, especially those who had wives or children with them? Would multiple officers have stayed in one room, together with wives/kids?
Fitzhugh Williams	Posted - June 06 2007 : 12:18:20 PM Maybe from Normandy? Or Alsace-Lorraine? What about one named "De Saxe"? Or "Johnstone"? Or "DeKalb"?
Obediah	Posted - June 06 2007 : 10:57:24 AM There's one thing that has been bothering me for a long, long time. Whoever heard of a Frenchman named Fitzhugh?
Fitzhugh Williams	Posted - June 06 2007 : 12:07:12 AM There were a lot of different guns in use, but if you stay strictly with the 1746 French fusil and the Long Land Pattern Bess, there is not really that much difference is size, weight, and barrel length. The French gun is of slightly less caliber, .69-.72 or so compared to .75-.77 for the British. Both are heavier built than a civilian gun so they can be used as a weapon other than when fired, that is as a mount for a bayonet. The barrel of the French gun is retained by metal bands, the British gun with pins, so it is easy to see the difference. Now there were a lot of different French guns in use other than the 1728-1746 model, and many of these were lighter weight hunting guns. Wolfe armed his officers with captured French guns because there were lighter than the ones they were carrying, which was the standard infantry model. These would have been the lighter hunting guns which would not have been fitted for a bayonet, but officers had no need of a bayonet because they would not be standing in a line of battle. You could write a book on the subject and many have. But to keep the question in its most simple form, the two armies were similarly armed.
RedFraggle	Posted - June 05 2007 : 11:43:52 PM Me again. Time for another silly question. Can anyone tell me the difference between a French musket and a British musket in the period of the F&I War? I read somehwere (can't remember where!) that French muskets were longer and lighter than British ones. I think the figure given was 6-8 pounds vs. 10 pounds for the British musket (?). True? Not true? In any case, could one tell a French musket from a British one just by looking at it?
Wilderness Woman	Posted - March 19 2007 : 10:43:31 PM If I may add something to what Seamus has said... I think that it sometimes depended partly on what the opposing army was doing. It if was going into winter quarters, then it was reasonably safe to do so, as well. But if it was on the move, it may have been necessary to keep moving to gain an advantageous position, as well. Or in the case of Washington's brash move to attack Trenton, New Jersey early on Christmas Day (after crossing the Delaware during the night), sometimes going into winter quarters was delayed in order to gain the advantage and catch the enemy unaware.
Seamus	Posted - March 19 2007 : 11:13:40 AM Yep!
Monadnock Guide	Posted - March 19 2007 : 10:24:33 AM We're they really that scientific Seamus? ;)
Seamus	Posted - March 19 2007 : 09:26:59 AM When the weather gets too crappy to campaign, and when it clears up again.
RedFraggle	Posted - March 19 2007 : 07:29:34 AM Dare I open this can of worms again? I'm wondering if anyone can tell me when (approx.) troops would go into and leave winter quarters in 18th c. America. Just another one of those random thoughts I had while doing some readings!
Monadnock Guide	Posted - February 23 2007 : 07:42:14 AM On second thought, - good point Fritz.
Fitzhugh Williams	Posted - February 23 2007 : 12:30:05 AM quote: You two sure your not married? Of course not. We are much to civil to each other. Can't you tell? Marry a British woman? It think not!!! My wife is French!!! And actually, not that it matters to anyone, her middle name comes down through her family from an ancestor named for LaFayette.
Light of the Moon	Posted - February 22 2007 : 9:36:43 PM quote: Originally posted by Wilderness Woman Ummmmm... I'm not really sure of what you are referring to here, so please pardon me if I am misunderstanding. But, if you are referring to us, you do realize that Fitz and I are just kidding around, don't you? Fitz is a long-time re-enactor, whom I respect a great deal (just don't tell him that !) and I am a newbie re-enactor who still has much to learn. There is no prejudice between us, at least within the 21st century! Right, Fitzie?? You respect me,too, don't you?? There's no prejudice on your part... is there? We are... just joking..... aren't we???? Fitz...???? Does that "Clear it up any?" I love it! The "Clear it up any?" remark. That was funny. And yes you did understand my post quite well and I apologize for the misunderstanding. Who da' thunk of the unspoken pun, now that just makes it all quite funny! Thanks for cluing me in!
Wilderness Woman	Posted - February 22 2007 : 8:22:57 PM Positive. Me? Marry a Frenchman? Never.
Monadnock Guide	Posted - February 22 2007 : 5:04:32 PM You two sure your not married?
Wilderness Woman	Posted - February 22 2007 : 3:55:06 PM Wench? Wench??? How dare you, Sir, call me that! Do not place me into the same category as the "loose" women you associate with in your bawdy French taverns. I keep my stays quite tightly laced, thank you very much, like the proper lady I am. And, I might add, the only "error of my ways" that needs correcting is this silly thought I keep having that perhaps... just perhaps... you are not like the usual Fran-say. Obviously, you are. And it's the same 21st century in which you are fast-forwarding your LOTM tape.
Fitzhugh Williams	Posted - February 22 2007 : 12:58:30 PM My good Wilderness Wench, er..., Woman, of course there is no prejudice between us! All I try to do is to show you the error of your ways. And I still hold out hope that one day you will come to your senses (and to the French side as well). And by the way, what is this 21st century you were talking about?
Wilderness Woman	Posted - February 22 2007 : 10:17:38 AM quote: Originally posted by Light of the Moon But I will have to say there appears to be some prejudice amongst the clashing cultures here. It's sad too. To see people adhereing to old beliefs and mere hear say without having ever gone directly to the root of it. Ummmmm... I'm not really sure of what you are referring to here, so please pardon me if I am misunderstanding. But, if you are referring to us, you do realize that Fitz and I are just kidding around, don't you? Fitz is a long-time re-enactor, whom I respect a great deal (just don't tell him that !) and I am a newbie re-enactor who still has much to learn. There is no prejudice between us, at least within the 21st century! Right, Fitzie?? You respect me,too, don't you?? There's no prejudice on your part... is there? We are... just joking..... aren't we???? Fitz...???? Does that "Clear it up any?"
Light of the Moon	Posted - February 22 2007 : 10:04:19 AM quote: Originally posted by RedFraggle You two are too funny, WW and Fitz! I have to say I've been enjoying your sparring match, even as an outside observer. Looks like I opened some can of worms with these Redcoat questions! Boy did ya', Red! But I will have to say there appears to be some prejudice amongst the clashing cultures here. It's sad too. To see people adhereing to old beliefs and mere hear say without having ever gone directly to the root of it. At one time I detested the english because of their history and certainly they must be the same today. Snobbish, "mannerly" people that will be sugar on your ears and knives in your back. Then I met some and actually talked with them and became friends with them. They aren't at all what I made of them and I was wrong for my thinking. Since then I don't judge people by "what I've heard" or "what it appears to be from afar" because these things are rarely accurate and play on the side of fancy more than anything.
Fitzhugh Williams	Posted - February 14 2007 : 11:44:16 AM It's getting better as time goes on. Strangely enough, it sometimes hurts worse sitting than standing. That bodes ill for extended stays in the tavern. On the other hand, you can get some really good pain killers there, so I will manage. But speaking of the 250th events, one that everyone should consider is Louisbourg in 2008. Yeah, it pretty much at the end of the earth, as least as far as North Amreica is concerned, but the pictures I have seen of it really make me want to go. It's way above Williamsburg as a reconstructed site. Nothing else like it, period!!!
Wilderness Woman	Posted - February 14 2007 : 10:43:26 AM Hah!!!! Serves you right, Miss-yer! I think you have gotten what you deserve. Too bad you didn't damage both of your knees. That would certainly put a crimp in your "wenching." [WW hides her smile behind her fan, as she pictures the poor Frenchman crying out in pain when a plump tavern wench plops herself onto his damaged knee.] Seriously, Fitz... sorry to hear of your injury. Hope it heals soon.
Fitzhugh Williams	Posted - February 13 2007 : 5:54:50 PM Unfortunately the "genoux" are not as good as they once were. It seems that last fall, while assisting mes frères rouges to capture, torture and scalp some helpless settlers, I suffered an injury to my left knee. So now I must take care upon which genou les femmes sit. Nevertheless, I will carry on. On to Crown Point, that is. And WH. And speaking of the Grand Encampments, ask some of your Anglois friends the name that Grand Encampment I is now known by.
Monadnock Guide	Posted - February 13 2007 : 07:48:55 AM Always trying to help things along. ... ;)
Wilderness Woman	Posted - February 12 2007 : 9:29:28 PM Well RF, I think you merely fueled the fire, as we have been sparring for quite some time now. MG, this somewhat staid and very loyal British Colonial lady would never stoop so low as to sit on the knee of a Frenchman! Good Heavens! How can you suggest such a thing, Sir? No, no. Miss-yer Lay Fran-say may continue his sordid dalliances with the tavern wenches, for all I care. It rather suits him, don't you think?

DISCLAIMER
Tune, 40, used by permission - composed by Ron Clarke

Custom Search

The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]

Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.18 seconds