Just returned from England (only 4 days unfortunately) however I was in
Chester for Anzac day. Parade at the HQ of the 22nd (Cheshire) Regt, scouts
and bands parading through the streets. Yes, in the UK too it has become
another 'Armistice Day" and well deserved too.
Why we voted to go into Europe instead of strengthening the trading
relationship with the Commonwealth I will never know. All I can say is *I*
never voted for it!
Makes you proud to be part of the Empire, even if twits have destroyed most
of it.

Cheers

Tim

In a message dated 4/21/99 9:58:44 PM Central Daylight Time, feltoe@...
writes:

<< As a result the exact terms of the Order-in-Council that gave us
  the exemption on the flint, wheel, and matchlock reproductions was made
  explicitly applicable to longarms only and it equally specifically stated
  that flintlock etc. pistols of ANY variety (whether original, replica or
  reproduction) were not exempt from the legislation applicable to the modern
  handguns.  >>

Dear Richard,
                     Not to be a scaremonger do you happen to know what
constitutes a 'longarm' under this act? I ask because in the UK the Paget
Carbine has a barrel length that puts it in the pistol category (or did).
Just a thought, knowing how these 'jobswoths' get. As ever thanks for the
info Richard.

Cheers

Tim

Re carrying weapons info can be found at   www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca   Fire arms
act Fact sheet. I have booked a call to the Govt lawyer who handles this
act and will get varification from him, as it stands the act is still
somewhat confusing, even the firearms people are having trouble sorting
it out, they still claim pistols of black powder type are listed as
antiques?  It will take the lawyer about 3 weeks to respond to the
queerie  Let you know.
Chris

In a message dated 4/21/99 5:53:23 PM Central Daylight Time, gbutt@...
writes:

<< 5. The dazzle of bright arms prevents aim being taken, in the sun-proof of
  this is that brown barrels are universally used by sportsmen.
   >>

This is fascinating. The order in ergs is 'Present' not aim and I have read
various notes about discouraging men from aiming. However this snippet from
Napier seems to indicate that aiming was common, at least within his regiment.
Interesting stuff!

Cheers

Tim

Tim writes,

		 Dear Richard,
		                     Not to be a scaremonger do you happen to
know what
		 constitutes a 'longarm' under this act? I ask because in the
UK the Paget
		 Carbine has a barrel length that puts it in the pistol
category (or did).
		 Just a thought, knowing how these 'jobswoths' get. As ever
thanks for the
		 info Richard.

		 Andrew Bateman writes:

		 I believe I can help.  Under Canadian law, the definition of
a long arm has always been an overall length of 26-1/2" regardless of barrel
length.  In addition, if the firearm is a centerfire semiautomatic, it must
have a barrel length of at least 18-1/2".  I mention this because there is a
very common misconception that the 18-1/2" barrel rule applies to all
firearms, but a reading of the Criminal Code will show you that this is not
the case.  (The restriction on centerfire semiautomatics with barrels less
than 18-1/2" was introduced in the 1970's specifically to prevent the
proliferation of cheap surplus M1 Carbines; which have 18" barrels and were
concerning  the police with their 30 shot magazines; without affecting
semi-auto hunting rifles.)  Therefore I would tend to believe that, for our
purposes, an unrestricted "antique" long arm would be any flintlock with an
overall length greater than 26-1/2".  I await correction from Chris Franke's
inquiries.

		 I can well believe that the Paget is considered a pistol, or
more technically a "Firearm", under British law.  Most reenactors over in
Jolly Old hold their muskets on a "Shotgun" certificate, which requires a
smoothbore firearm with a barrel at least 24" from the breech face to the
muzzle.  Anything shorter falls into the much more restrictive "Firearm"
category, which also includes all rifled arms.

		 KYPD,

		 Andrew

>>Subject: A.N.Z.A.C. Day
>>
>> Dear Anne;
I was interested in your explanation of A.N.Z.A.C Day .Our thoughts are with
you and all of the veterans on this important date for your countries.
As a former History Teacher I was often in charge of our schools Remembrance
Day Auditorium and attempted ,with some success, to make students aware of
the waste and sacrifice of war.I somtimes made use of A.N.Z.A.C. related
material such as the Excellent film, "Gallipoli,"starring Mel Gibson and/or
the sad song "The Band Played Waltzing Matilda" , by Eric Bogle. Both of
these always evoked great interest and emotion from the students and
staff,especially if we had exchange teachers from your countries on staff,as
we often did .So I thought I would let you know that a little bit of your
history is known and remembered here in Canada!
>>
>> Yours Sincerely , Robert Tordiff
>>P.S. Canadians had a similiar experience to Gallipoli in World War Two at
the port of Dieppe in France. Lest we Forget!
>>
>

Tim,

British light infantry regiments after 1809 often browned their musket
barrels, and some models of the Short Land Pattern, Light infantry Musket
had rudimentary rear sights installed after 1812. (source: "Redcoat and
Brown Bess", by Anthony Darling)

Light Infantry, at least in the British Army, had been taught to aim when
firing independently or in file partners as far back as the AWI. (See Howe's
LI Regs, 1774)

YMH&OS
Roger Fuller
3/95th Foot


-----Original Message-----
From: BritcomHMP@... <BritcomHMP@...>
To: WarOf1812@onelist.com <WarOf1812@onelist.com>
Date: 27 April 1999 11:29
Subject: [WarOf1812] Re: gun barrels


>From: BritcomHMP@...
>
>In a message dated 4/21/99 5:53:23 PM Central Daylight Time,
gbutt@...
>writes:
>
><< 5. The dazzle of bright arms prevents aim being taken, in the sun-proof
of
> this is that brown barrels are universally used by sportsmen.
>  >>
>
>This is fascinating. The order in ergs is 'Present' not aim and I have read
>various notes about discouraging men from aiming. However this snippet from
>Napier seems to indicate that aiming was common, at least within his
regiment.
>Interesting stuff!
>
>Cheers
>
>Tim
>
>

>British light infantry regiments after 1809 often browned their musket
>barrels, and some models of the Short Land Pattern, Light infantry Musket
>had rudimentary rear sights installed after 1812. (source: "Redcoat and
>Brown Bess", by Anthony Darling)
>
>Light Infantry, at least in the British Army, had been taught to aim when
>firing independently or in file partners as far back as the AWI. (See Howe's
>LI Regs, 1774)


I think that when Tim mentions troops were taught not to aim he is refering
to a general order in force at the time. It is fairly well known that line
troops did not aim and were taught instead to "present" their weapons with
their head nice and tall therefore presenting a more imposing figure to the
enemy.

When light infantry and rifles were operating in pairs they were most
certainly told to aim as the musket (and rifle) are quite accurate when
employed in such a manner but when they were recalled to line it would be
almost impossible to aim. There are several factors that go against such
practice:

	 - The time involved in aiming a weapon seriously reduces the speed
at which a weapon can be
	   fired. This would imply an individualism in line that, in the
British army was somewhat
	   frowned upon and it would also take away the effectiveness of a
solid well fired volley.

	 - Firing with a leather neck stock (for those poor line troops who
have to wear them) on is most
	   difficult. The stock was originally designed to protect the
soldiers neck from the thrust of an
	   epee but after the use of such weapons died out it was found they
were very effective for
	   keeping a soldiers head held high and proud.

	 - if soldiers were taught to aim then why was it always a problem
for line troops to fire high.
	   If they had actually been taught to aim this really wouldn't have
been a problem.

As to muskets being browned, I'm sure I read somewhere that it was not made
regulation until sometime in 1815 or 16 but that it was certainly not
unknown before then as individual regiments had practices of their own in
force.



Lance Corporal Sean Hirst
Royal Newfoundland Reg't, Lt. Coy
*********************************
945-0591

Based upon a conversation that I had with the Firearms Business Inspector of the
O.P.P.weapons such as the Paget Carbine are not considered pistols or restricted
weapons
because the the total length of the weapon exceeds the minimum restriction and
the weapon was designed with a short barrel(under18") in the first place. I
believe that if
a firearm has a total length of 22" or more it is classified as a longarm. I
hope that this helps
GSTK Pierre

BritcomHMP@... wrote:

> From: BritcomHMP@...
>
> In a message dated 4/21/99 9:58:44 PM Central Daylight Time, feltoe@...
> writes:
>
> << As a result the exact terms of the Order-in-Council that gave us
>  the exemption on the flint, wheel, and matchlock reproductions was made
>  explicitly applicable to longarms only and it equally specifically stated
>  that flintlock etc. pistols of ANY variety (whether original, replica or
>  reproduction) were not exempt from the legislation applicable to the modern
>  handguns.  >>
>
> Dear Richard,
>                     Not to be a scaremonger do you happen to know what
> constitutes a 'longarm' under this act? I ask because in the UK the Paget
> Carbine has a barrel length that puts it in the pistol category (or did).
> Just a thought, knowing how these 'jobswoths' get. As ever thanks for the
> info Richard.
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Looking to expand your world?
> http://www.ONElist.com
> ONElist has over 115,000 e-mail communities from which to chose!
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The War of 1812: In Europe, thousands fought over the fate of hundreds of
square miles: in North America, hundreds determined the fate of THOUSANDS of
square miles...

In a message dated 4/27/99 3:26:32 PM Central Daylight Time,
fullerfamily@... writes:

<< British light infantry regiments after 1809 often browned their musket
  barrels, and some models of the Short Land Pattern, Light infantry Musket
  had rudimentary rear sights installed after 1812. (source: "Redcoat and
  Brown Bess", by Anthony Darling)

  Light Infantry, at least in the British Army, had been taught to aim when
  firing independently or in file partners as far back as the AWI. (See Howe's
  LI Regs, 1774) >>


Quite, but as Sean rightly points out, my point is that the 'Present' was
used by the majority of the regiment. Napier seems to be making the argument
for browning by implying that the whole of the regiment aimed which, as Sean
said, was not done. Perhaps he knew that whoever read his recommendation
would know he was referring to the Lights, if not its a bit of a curious
statement.

Cheers

Tim

Roger and Ed,

Interesting topic.  The 1813 reference of iron "Flander's" kettles being
replaced by tin ones refers to the kettles and not the "mess tins".  The tin
mess kettles were in
fact a tin pail which the mess used to pool and cook their rations. This kettle
was carried alternately by each soldier in a mess of six or eight (in the
field).    A
similar type for the US Army (I assume) was found at Fort Meigs some years back
(see Company of Military Historians).

The mess tins that Roger refers to is a whole different animal.  In some
regiments, a regimental pattern mess tin was part of each soldier's necessaries.
This was not
ordered for the whole army until 31 October 1817.   The most common design seems
to be the dish described by Roger.  It had a tin loop on the rear and its own
strap to
attach it to the knapsack.  In order to determine whether your regiment had them
you would have to search the world for a list of the regimental necessaries for
your
corps.  For example, account books for the 49th show men purchasing mess tins
while the lists for the 41st show none.  The 71st  mention them while the 85th
do not (not
necessarily a light infantry thing).  The 6th Regiment refer to owning tin
plates which would have been in the knapsack (not an old corps thing). The
D-shaped mess tin
started popping up around 1814 and became law in the 31 October 1817 order. 
From archeaological finds at Fort Malden, one thing is certain the idle soldier
often turned
his attention to scratching graffitti into his mess tin (and on barracks and
guardhouse walls, sentry boxes....).  I do not know the dimensions of the round
mess tin
dish.  Artists seems to show them at various diameters and depths.  Roger, is
your measurements from some order or reg or are they estimates?

One last comment about the mess tin Roger talks about.  I remember reading an
account of a surgeon in the Peninsula.  One of the cases to come to his table
was that of a
soldier who had been  hit in the back by a "spent" round shot.  While the shot
did not have the speed to go through the soldier it did have enough strength to
drive his
circuler mess tin down off his knapsack, cutting his buttocks off on the way.  -
a whole new meaning to being a "swore ass".

If you are interested in other messing implements or the messing system in
general I have a couple of articles on our website (
http://www.militaryheritage.com/1812.htm )
dealing with the said topics.

Hope this helps,

Robert Henderson



Roger Fuller wrote:

> From: "Roger Fuller" <fullerfamily@...>
>
> Ed, good to hear you are with us on the 1812 List. Keep up the good work
> with the Royal Marines, you gents are a great group.
>
> Now for the pans and kettles. The Brit. Army used a 9 1/2" wide pan of sheet
> iron with two welded/riveted handles up until 1814/15. This was about 2-3"
> deep, pan bottom was narrower than the top, and was fastened to the pack on
> back by a strap running through the handles, leaving the pan's bottom facing
> out. (John White of Avalon Forge in Baltimore avlonfrg@... can make
> them up from sheet steel for you. He takes 9 1/2" skillets and can put
> handles on them for you. I don't have prices.) These pans had replaced the
> "Flanders cauldrons" that were too big to be carried efficiently on
> campaign. The skillet pans were issued one to a squad, at least in the Rifle
> and LI regts. They were supplanted but not entirely replaced by the
> ubiquitous "D" mess tin. So, both would have been seen in America, at least
> at New Orleans and I suppose in Prevost's campaign in upstate New York, as
> both were composed in large part of Peninsular veterans. For the Atlantic
> campaigns, I'm not sure, but I'd say the pans are a safe bet, as they'd been
> standard issue for a while.
>
> Roger Fuller
> 3/95th Foot
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Easeufe@... <Easeufe@...>
> To: warof1812@onelist.com <warof1812@onelist.com>
> Date: 26 April 1999 23:57
> Subject: [WarOf1812] Camp Kettles
>
> >From: Easeufe@...
> >
> >Hello,
> >
> >My name is Ed Seufert and a small group of us have started doing Royal
> >Marines in the Chesapeake area for the War of 1812.
> >
> >Quick question if anybody wants to tackle it.
> >
> >The Peninsula army got tents in 1813 and handed in their heavy iron kettles
> >for tin ones.  Are these the kettles that are strapped to the back of packs
> >that can be seen in some drawings and does anyone produce them?  Would they
> >have been used in North America?
> >
> >Thanks.

****************************************************************************
Visit the Discriminating General at: http://www.militaryheritage.com
Experience the War of 1812 at: http://www.militaryheritage.com/1812.htm
Heritage Film Services: http://www.militaryheritage.com/research.htm


THE Discriminating General
1121 Jean Park Road
Manotick, ON
K4M 1E4
CANADA

Phone/FAX: (613)692-3577

****************************************************************************

Easeufe@... wrote:

> From: Easeufe@...
>
> Hello,
>
> My name is Ed Seufert and a small group of us have started doing Royal
> Marines in the Chesapeake area for the War of 1812.
>

Ed,

Glad to see you on the list.

Punkinhead
21t (Not that Froggy Lot) *snort*

I just got finished watching the fourth Hornblower movie, "The Wrong War" on
A&E last night and enjoyed it immensely, but I have a question for you 95th
Regiment experts out there.  In the film, which I believe was set in the
1790's, Hornblower's ship was part of a flotilla that landed some French
Royalists and a half battalion of British infantry on the coast of France in
hopes of raising an insurrection against the Revolutionaries.  The British
infantry in the film had red uniforms with yellow facings and "XCV" painted
on their knapsacks, and their Major introduced himself to Hornblower as
being from the 95th.

My question is, was the film's use of the 95th at such an early date a bit
of fiction like Cornwell's "South Essex"?  Was the 95th regiment in reality
raised as a regular line battalion and then re-armed with Baker rifles and
given green uniforms at a later date, or were they raised as a Rifle
regiment to begin with?  I had understood that the 95th started out as an
"Experimental Corps of Riflemen" who were later given the number 95 and
added to the Line.

Pte. Andrew Bateman, 41st R.O.F.

P.S.  It's amazing how being a reenactor influences the way you watch a
film.  I was noticing and savoring all kinds of details like the Indian
muskets the British soldiers were carrying, and comparing the uniforms to
the ones we wear for 1812.  I never really noticed it before, but there was
a huge change in the clothing people wore between the 1790's and the 1810's
- exchanging breeches for trousers, the coats got shorter, no more clubbed
or curled hair, etc., etc.

In a message dated 4/27/99 6:58:36 PM Central Daylight Time,
dis.general@... writes:

<< The D-shaped mess tin
  started popping up around 1814 and became law in the 31 October 1817 order.
>>

This shape of tin seems to have originated in the Peninsula as it is
basically a straight take off of the peasants tin for cooking paella. In fact
they are still in use today.

Cheers

Tim

In a message dated 4/28/99 6:48:13 AM Central Daylight Time,
abateman@... writes:

<< My question is, was the film's use of the 95th at such an early date a bit
  of fiction like Cornwell's "South Essex"?  Was the 95th regiment in reality
  raised as a regular line battalion and then re-armed with Baker rifles and
  given green uniforms at a later date, or were they raised as a Rifle
  regiment to begin with?  I had understood that the 95th started out as an
  "Experimental Corps of Riflemen" who were later given the number 95 and
  added to the Line. >>

Gets a bit complicated but a regiment numbered the 95th was around in 1781and
was later disbanded (don't have the exact date of that) and did indeed have
yellow facings. You are quite right in saying that when the Riflemen were put
into the line they were given the (now vacant) number 95th. In 1816 they were
taken out of the line and given the title 'The Rifle Brigade' and the left of
the line. all the regiments over 94 were disbanded by 1819 though some were
re-raised a few years later.

Anybody notice that the Marines were using the round hats that were not
officially issued until June 6th 1799?

Cheers

Tim

Hi List,

      A lovely topic to see just before lunch.....(yum!)

      I need to put in my .2 cents worth here. I was stationed in Spain for
      three years and scarfed as much Paella as I could. But the traditional
      cooking container does not resemble the "D" British mess tin at all.
      In fact it looks more like the earlier described flat, shallow pan
      with handles on either side.

      I imagine this is the tin Tim was thinking of.

      Since I was there for the 500th anniversary of Columbus' voyage, I was
      active in a 1492 living history program at Puerto de Santa Maria, near
      Huelva, Seville and Cadiz. The research on period eating/cooking
      utensils (including information sent to me by Gerry Embleton) showed
      the fired terra-cotta style shallow dishes used to cook Paella today
      were identical to those in 1492. (except the lead content)

      In the interests of longevity of the utensil and availability of sheet
      metal, the Paella dishes began to be made in both terra-cotta and
      steel. I bought both whilst stationed there. The steel dish was @ 7.00
      USD and the terra-cotta dish was @ 3.00 USD.

      As a side note, finding "period looking" food and utensils in Spain
      was a joy. So much of what I was looking for was still available in
      the Gypsy markets and shops.  And cheap, too!  Crockery, hemp-rope
      cording, raw meats and un-dressed poultry....

      The sad part was that the locals were un-impressed when you sat
      plucking a whole chicken for the cook-pot like the tourists are at
      North American events. (The tourist says in horror "What! You mean
      chickens don't come in yellow plastic from Perdue??!!??")

      Anyway, It would be a good thread to see just when some tinsmith
      decided to make life more difficult for himself, and make a cookpot a
      half-round shape rather than an easy-to-make-shape like a round pot.
      And then convince the Army to buy it.

      Cheers (and off to lunch....)
      Jim Burrill




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: [WarOf1812] Re: Camp Kettles
Author:  BritcomHMP@... at Internet-USA
Date:    4/28/99 10:32 AM


From: BritcomHMP@...

In a message dated 4/27/99 6:58:36 PM Central Daylight Time,
dis.general@... writes:

<< The D-shaped mess tin
  started popping up around 1814 and became law in the 31 October 1817 order.
>>

This shape of tin seems to have originated in the Peninsula as it is
basically a straight take off of the peasants tin for cooking paella. In fact
they are still in use today.

Cheers

Tim

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you know why...
"The Closer" picked ONElist to host their baseball humor community?
http://www.onelist.com
Because of ONElist's reliable service and live customer support!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The War of 1812: In Europe, thousands fought over the fate of hundreds of square
  miles: in North America, hundreds determined the fate of THOUSANDS of square
  miles...

In a message dated 4/28/99 11:28:10 AM Central Daylight Time,
jburrill@... writes:

<<  I imagine this is the tin Tim was thinking of. >>
Indeed it was Jim but Mr. Brain was on holiday!

Cheers

Tim

Sean,

I wanted to use your last entry as a comparison between our nations' troops-



   <<When light infantry and rifles were operating in pairs they were most
   certainly told to aim as the musket (and rifle) are quite accurate when
   employed in such a manner but when they were recalled to line it would be
   almost impossible to aim. There are several factors that go against such
   practice:

    The time involved in aiming a weapon seriously reduces the speed
   at which a weapon can be
   fired. This would imply an individualism in line that, in the
   British army was somewhat
   frowned upon and it would also take away the effectiveness of a
   solid well fired volley.

  if soldiers were taught to aim then why was it always a problem
   for line troops to fire high.
   If they had actually been taught to aim this really wouldn't have
   been a problem. >>

US troops were told to "TAKE AIM". In the Northwest, when relieved from guard
duty, soldiers were required to discharge their muskets at a target to improve
their aim. the closest to the centre mark was rewarded with an extra gill of
whiskey. Whether US troops, in general, were better marksmen for this, I have
no idea.

Betsy

>US troops were told to "TAKE AIM". In the Northwest, when relieved from guard
>duty, soldiers were required to discharge their muskets at a target to improve
>their aim. the closest to the centre mark was rewarded with an extra gill of
>whiskey. Whether US troops, in general, were better marksmen for this, I have
>no idea.


'Tis true, the colonial rebel always did have an air of independence about
him that was wholly without fashion. :-) :-) :-) :-)

When a US trooper was told to take aim was is in the literal sense or was
it with a note to taking a particular target into account to fire on. I'm
not sure but I wonder if this command was more with regards to aiming your
weapon in the general direction of the enemy. Any thoughts?

My reasoning is that aiming seriously reduces speed in line firing and
speed is what counts at this point. I can understand aiming in an
individual or pair firing scenario as it is more accuracy that counts then.
In a line situation there is so much smoke created after the first few
volleys that you would have no enemy to take aim at.

Also I thought the American soldier really became effective when they
adopted European fighting styles under the command of Winfield Scott in the
Niagara. Up to this point in the war the Americans were generally beaten
when it came to a line to line fire fight (this is an "in general"
statement as I'm sure people can come up with several instances that would
contradict this). It was a source of pride for Americans to say that they
were able to stand up and faced the best equiped, best trained, most
disciplined army the world had to offer and do so with marked skill and
ability.

As for them being better marksmen for this, I too can not say. The British
army did the most live fire practice of ANY army of the period which was
one of the main contributors to them being the best army in the field. I'm
sure the rifle regiment and most likely the light infantry did their live
fire practice with targets in mind as well although I personally don't have
any info on this...


Lance Corporal Sean Hirst
Royal Newfoundland Reg't, Lt. Coy
*********************************
945-0591

Thought I would pass this along....one never knows who might be interested...

Besides, I understand they are encouraging US impressions to come and help
fill the Norman ranks.....

AHAHAHAHahahahahahahahahahaha.....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We were too busy watching the bottoms of ships painting in
anti-fouling paint.

Max
Maxine Trottier
maxitrot@...
http://www.execulink.com/~maxitrot/maxine.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: <BritcomHMP@...>
To: <WarOf1812@onelist.com>
Sent: 28 April 1999 11:48
Subject: [WarOf1812] Re: The 95th in Hornblower


> From: BritcomHMP@...
>
> In a message dated 4/28/99 6:48:13 AM Central Daylight Time,
> abateman@... writes:
>
> << My question is, was the film's use of the 95th at such an early
date a bit
>  of fiction like Cornwell's "South Essex"?  Was the 95th regiment in
reality
>  raised as a regular line battalion and then re-armed with Baker
rifles and
>  given green uniforms at a later date, or were they raised as a
Rifle
>  regiment to begin with?  I had understood that the 95th started out
as an
>  "Experimental Corps of Riflemen" who were later given the number 95
and
>  added to the Line. >>
>
> Gets a bit complicated but a regiment numbered the 95th was around
in 1781and
> was later disbanded (don't have the exact date of that) and did
indeed have
> yellow facings. You are quite right in saying that when the Riflemen
were put
> into the line they were given the (now vacant) number 95th. In 1816
they were
> taken out of the line and given the title 'The Rifle Brigade' and
the left of
> the line. all the regiments over 94 were disbanded by 1819 though
some were
> re-raised a few years later.
>
> Anybody notice that the Marines were using the round hats that were
not
> officially issued until June 6th 1799?
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> Did you know that you can now set up a shared calendar to
> post events of interest to your community?
> http://www.onelist.com
> Check out our homepage for details.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> The War of 1812: In Europe, thousands fought over the fate of
hundreds of square miles: in North America, hundreds determined the
fate of THOUSANDS of square miles...
>

MAXINE TROTTIER wrote:
>
> We were too busy watching the bottoms of ships painting in
> anti-fouling paint.
>
> Max
> Maxine Trottier

Andrew writes:

OK, what does that mean?

KYPD,

Andrew

At that time, the part of the ship's hull that was underwater would
have been copper clad or bare wood. Copper will keep anything off the
hull. These were "contemporary" ships and for the sake of sanity and
barnacles, the bottoms were painted with a fairly toxic substance that
repels the creatures. It was red. A very small thing but we noticed it
since we sail.

the other thing I noticed was the very abrupt ending. Tell me there
will be more episodes.
Maxine Trottier
maxitrot@...
http://www.execulink.com/~maxitrot/maxine.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Bateman <abateman@...>
To: <WarOf1812@onelist.com>
Sent: 28 April 1999 17:35
Subject: [WarOf1812] Re: The 95th in Hornblower


> From: Andrew Bateman <abateman@...>
>
>
>
> MAXINE TROTTIER wrote:
> >
> > We were too busy watching the bottoms of ships painting in
> > anti-fouling paint.
> >
> > Max
> > Maxine Trottier
>
> Andrew writes:
>
> OK, what does that mean?
>
> KYPD,
>
> Andrew
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> Looking for an efficient, fun way to stay in touch with family
members?
> http://www.onelist.com
> Create a ONElist community just for your family!
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> The War of 1812: In Europe, thousands fought over the fate of
hundreds of square miles: in North America, hundreds determined the
fate of THOUSANDS of square miles...
>

Hello all (in Canada)
                       I got this e:mail can someone help this person.

Hello,
My name is Craig.I would be interested in joining a British Forces
re-enactment group.I am originally from Britain and have been in Canada
for about 8 years.
I would be grateful if you could either supply me with some contacts or
pass on this email to one of these outfits.I live in Ontario in the
Toronto area.
Many thanks,
Yours,
Craig Midgley

midgleyc@...

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Ah, yes, the 95th Foot, 18th century style. First set up in 1760, disbanded
in 1763. Then in the AWI, it was reestablished as a unit raised in Yorkshire
with yellow facings, and served as garrison troops on the Isle of Jersey at
the fortress, withstanding an assault by French troops in 1781. The unit was
disbanded in 1784. The assault is celebrated in Benjamin West's famous
painting, "The Death of Major Pierson", a very detailed painting showing
many uniform practices of the time.

Where did the Hornblower people get those 95th Foot uniforms- well, it's a
long, twisted history, but these uniforms were used in the 1987 film,
"Revolution", probably THE worst movie about the AWI ever, but the costume
designer, Andrew (or is it John?) Mollo, not only designed the uniforms for
this movie, but also for Sharpe, as well as for....you guessed it, -
Hornblower! I guess he just went and blew the dust off the 1768
Warrant-style uniforms for the 95th Foot hanging in the wardrobe and trotted
them out for Horatio and Company. (Good way to save money, anyway).

His rationale for using the 95th Foot uniforms in "Revolution" was that to
try and keep up with the voluminous and still controversial British uniform
variations used in the AWI would have been just impossible, so he used "The
Death of Major Pierson" as a uniform guide- not a bad idea, I should think,
but by the 1790's, the time period of Midshipman Hornblower, the changes in
the uniform would have been evolutionary; higher collars, powdered cheek
whiskers, bicorns, and the like. I've not seen Hornblower, but I did
"Revolution", and boy, it's so bad, you have to sit downwind from the VCR
when it's playing.....at least the uniforms look good, though.

Besides the Meningreen of the 1803-1816 era, there was also a 95th Foot
after the 95th (Rifles) was taken out of the line and restyled the Rifle
Brigade. I think they were later amalgamated with another regiment, whose
name and number escape me.

Roger
3/95th Foot

-----Original Message-----
From: Bateman, Andrew <abateman@...>
To: 'WarOf1812@Onelist.com' <WarOf1812@onelist.com>
Date: 28 April 1999 07:48
Subject: [WarOf1812] The 95th in Hornblower


>From: "Bateman, Andrew" <abateman@...>
>
>I just got finished watching the fourth Hornblower movie, "The Wrong War"
on
>A&E last night and enjoyed it immensely, but I have a question for you 95th
>Regiment experts out there.  In the film, which I believe was set in the
>1790's, Hornblower's ship was part of a flotilla that landed some French
>Royalists and a half battalion of British infantry on the coast of France
in
>hopes of raising an insurrection against the Revolutionaries.  The British
>infantry in the film had red uniforms with yellow facings and "XCV" painted
>on their knapsacks, and their Major introduced himself to Hornblower as
>being from the 95th.
>
>My question is, was the film's use of the 95th at such an early date a bit
>of fiction like Cornwell's "South Essex"?  Was the 95th regiment in reality
>raised as a regular line battalion and then re-armed with Baker rifles and
>given green uniforms at a later date, or were they raised as a Rifle
>regiment to begin with?  I had understood that the 95th started out as an
>"Experimental Corps of Riflemen" who were later given the number 95 and
>added to the Line.
>
>Pte. Andrew Bateman, 41st R.O.F.
>
>P.S.  It's amazing how being a reenactor influences the way you watch a
>film.  I was noticing and savoring all kinds of details like the Indian
>muskets the British soldiers were carrying, and comparing the uniforms to
>the ones we wear for 1812.  I never really noticed it before, but there was
>a huge change in the clothing people wore between the 1790's and the 1810's
>- exchanging breeches for trousers, the coats got shorter, no more clubbed
>or curled hair, etc., etc.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Shop.theglobe.com * One-Stop Shopping * Free Shipping in U.S.!
>Live Personal Shopper * Satisfaction Guaranteed * No Hassle Returns!
>Accessories, Apparel, Jewelry, Kids, Sporting Goods, Apparel, More!!
>          http://www.onelist.com/ad/shoptheglobe0
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>The War of 1812: In Europe, thousands fought over the fate of hundreds of
square miles: in North America, hundreds determined the fate of THOUSANDS of
square miles...
>

.  Roger, is your measurements from some order or reg or are they estimates?
>
Hope this helps,
>
>Robert Henderson
>
Estimates derived from comparing shako and head sizes in prints by Atkinson
and Genty, as well as conversations with Les Handscombe of the UK 1/95th,
who said he got the idea from Keith Raynor, who'd done much of the research
for the 1/95th's uniforming years ago.. Also, the pans used are also called
"paella" pans, and are still used today in Spain, oddly enough, in about the
same diameter.

Roger
3/95th

Roger Fuller wrote:
>
> From: "Roger Fuller" <fullerfamily@...>
>
> Ah, yes, the 95th Foot, 18th century style. <snip>

Andrew Bateman writes:

Thanks for the info on the twisted history of the multiple incarnations
of the 95th, Roger & Tim.  I had thought that the Experimental Corps of
Riflemen became the 95th directly, and I was correct, but I also thought
that that implied that there was no 95th before that time, which was
wrong.

As soon as I saw those uniforms I suspected that the propmaster/art
director had decided to follow Bernard Cornwell's lead, creating a
convenient fictional unit and giving it yellow facings.  It turns out
that there was an element of truth in that, after all!  I saw Revolution
several years ago and agree that the film stank but the uniforms looked
great.  All I remember is the leering powdered faces of the foppish
English officers contrasted with the down to earth local folk who showed
how gritty they were by peppering their speech with the F-word like
Scorcese gangsters transplanted to the 18th century.  I just got my
first VCR, so does anyone know any *good* AWI movies?

To Maxine Trottier - thanks for telling this landlubber about
anti-fouling paint.  I have read enough about tall ships to be able to
tell at a glance when their best bowers are hanging acockbill with the
cat purchase rove, but I know nothing of modern sailing and would not
have known to look for non-period hull finishes.  As far as more movies,
I understand that they built a tall ship just for this series.  It would
be a shame not to make more money on it...

KYPD,

Pte. Andrew B., 41st ROF

In a message dated 4/28/99 11:50:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
BritcomHMP@... writes:

<<
  >>
Yes, the Top hats are a little early; the beltplates would be oval vs oblong;
  plates on the catridge boxes are questionable and the hair should be queued.
  At least they're wearing white facings.

Hi Betsy!

I do not know if you have any descriptions of targets being used by US forces,
but I did come across one for the British.   For those interested in live firing
here is a
target used by the 85th Regiment in 1812:

"The description of target to be invariably used will be the screen or figure
target; to be made of canvass, stretched on a wooden frame. seven feet in
height, and three
feet in breadth, supported in the rear by a small prop, similar to a gravel
sifter, only perpendicular; a figure will be marked on it, with arms folded
across the breast,
in the position of ordered arms, but never exceeding 6 feet in height, and 22
inches in breadth; the space between the extreme points, as head, feet, and
shoulders, and
the edge of the canvass, being shoulders, and the edge of the canvass, being
equally divided.  The colour of the figure and of the ground-work will be always
different,
but may be occasionally varied.  In the exact centre of the body will be
described a circle or ring of two inches diameter, surrounded by another circle
of eight inches
diameter."

A wooden figure was kept by the Quarter Master  to be used to traced from onto
the canvas.  The ranges practiced were 60, 100, 150 and 200 yards.

I have some accounts of targets being used by the British in the 1830s and 40s
were they really got fancy.  Hope you find this interesting.

Robert

Betsy Bashore wrote:

> From: Betsy Bashore <bjb_remote@...>
>
> US troops were told to "TAKE AIM". In the Northwest, when relieved from guard
> duty, soldiers were required to discharge their muskets at a target to improve
> their aim. the closest to the centre mark was rewarded with an extra gill of
> whiskey. Whether US troops, in general, were better marksmen for this, I have
> no idea.
>
> Betsy
>

****************************************************************************
Visit the Discriminating General at: http://www.militaryheritage.com
Experience the War of 1812 at: http://www.militaryheritage.com/1812.htm
Heritage Film Services: http://www.militaryheritage.com/research.htm


THE Discriminating General
1121 Jean Park Road
Manotick, ON
K4M 1E4
CANADA

Phone/FAX: (613)692-3577

****************************************************************************

Hi list, about two years ago when I was looking into recreating a 95th
      uniform, I came across a collector who had a solid pewter, silver
      plated , button with a Kings' crown over a '95'. It has a London maker
      on the back. (I am at work and don't have the button in front of me)
      It is smaller than the standard large button ....I will measure mine
      and post the dimensions later)

      I have heard that the button could be an Officers' private purchase,
      or it could be for the unit that took the 95th place in line after
      1815. I must confess, I don't remember the date the hollow, stamped
      buttons started being used for Army buttons.

      If the button can reasonably be used as a 95th Officers button, The
      owner of the original casts buttons for Godwin and also model
      soldiers. He made a few molds of the button for me and I have a couple
      of buttons made and silver plated. If the collective knowledge of the
      list validates their use, I could send a sample to you and the address
      of the maker. (I am not sutlering these)

      Cheers,
      Jim