> First, one must have a darned good reason to bring it over (reenactments
> qualify; I've been invited to be with the UK 1/95th at a living history
> event in August 1999). You also need a sponsor who is a UK resident
(don't
> know whether they have to be UK citizens). Then, the applicant and his or
> her sponsor must get and fill out the correct application forms, namely
the
> "Application for a Visitor's Firearm/Shot Gun Permit"(Firearms Form 107),
> and the "Application For Grant of an Explosives Certificate To Those
> Resident Outside The United Kingdom" (COER/2).
>
> Both forms are good for individuals as well as groups. You must spell out
in
> the forms exactly when, where and for what purpose you plan to use the
> rifled flintlock. They also ask if you plan to bring explosives with you.
I
> don't plan to, and I seriously doubt the US Govt. will let anybody take
any
> on the plane, even in the checked luggage. They also ask if you plan to
buy
> any firearms or shotguns, acc. to their definitions, while in the UK, but
> I'd probably need some kind of export licence.
>
> The police officer, who is helping my sponsor (my sister-in-law, who is
from
> Winchester, Hants) with the application, strongly recommended the latter
> form, at the very least because it's one of the few things that are
granted
> free by the UK Police! :^)
I honestly can't believe the beauracratic "bull***t! one must go through to
bring a flintlock rifle or musket into the UK. The forms and sponsors and
the cost of 24 pounds to get a piece of paper saying you can come in with
your gun! 24 pounds is a lot to pay for the privilege of going bang!
I realize we in Canuck land have strict gun laws but the UK's are crazy.
Sadly I don't think I'd ever do a re-enactment there.
In regards to the French forces or "Evil Empire" at Fort York, I hear they
are going to set up speakers on the field so when the "Evil Empire" forces
deploy on the field they can play Darth Vader's theme music.
(yah I know it was a bad joke but what the hell, isn't there a new Star
Wars movie coming out?).

Terry Lubka
Toronto, Ontario
tlubka@...

>I honestly can't believe the beauracratic "bull***t! one must go through to
>bring a flintlock rifle or musket into the UK. The forms and sponsors and
>the cost of 24 pounds to get a piece of paper saying you can come in with
>your gun! 24 pounds is a lot to pay for the privilege of going bang!

Actually, (because I wrote in a confused manner in my orig. post) the whole
shebang is only 12 pounds. But, hey- that's Cool Britannia- and those are
the laws I must obey, or it's "Strangeways, Here We Come"..... :^) Probably,
nobody in blue will even give a pot's toss about me and the rifle whilst I'm
over there, but then again?

>I realize we in Canuck land have strict gun laws but the UK's are crazy.

Mebbe so- but they are the "sandbox gods" over there- and BJ Klinton and
Tony Blair are best buddies, so...look for that here in the US of A pretty
soon.

(Hey, 1812ers in the USA- did you know that Mr Clinton wants black-powder
purchasers to undergo computerised background checks and be kept in a
database? Just how many guys in shakos are planning to attack a high
school?...... )

>Sadly I don't think I'd ever do a re-enactment there.

Well, I'll let you know how it all turns out. But, seriously, ACW reenactors
go over there all the time for reenactments, and nobody seems to care. I
detest gun control, i.e. victim disarmament, but, when I'm in somebody
else's country, I must obey the laws- or else.

>In regards to the French forces or "Evil Empire" at Fort York, I hear they
>are going to set up speakers on the field so when the "Evil Empire" forces
>deploy on the field they can play Darth Vader's theme music.
>(yah I know it was a bad joke but what the hell, isn't there a new Star
>Wars movie coming out?).

"May the farce be with you".... :^) But seriously, what Crown Forces groups
are coming to Ft York?
>
>Terry Lubka
>Toronto, Ontario
>tlubka@...


Roger
3/95th

>From: Betsy Bashore <bashore@...>
So I open up the question. Show me the battles where
>the Thin Red Line drove the Americans from the field with their superior
>musketry.
>Your Servant
>
>Robt. Trumbull

Well here is a freindly answer - a couple of actions come to mind, both of
which occured during the New Orleans campaign. The night battle on 23 Dec.
1814 and the action on the West Bank of the Mississippi River on 8 Jan
1815. :)

Scott


Scott McDonald
Member/ 93rd Sutherland Highland Regiment of Foot L.H.U.
http://members.aol.com/ninety3rd
<mailto: raintree@...>

Scott,
Must  in good spirit disagree with your conclusion of the actions of Dec 23
and on the west bank at New Orleans on the morning of January 8 for the
following reasons.

1.  The American Army was not driven from the field on the evening of the 23.
  A thick fog had arose causing a great deal of confusion among troops of both
sides. Jackson realizing he was using troops acting in concert together for
the first time in a night attack elected to withdraw.  Also the arrival of
British reinforcements had now tipped the battle numerically to the British.
Jackson's report states as follows:  "....a thick fog which arose about 8
o'clock, occasioned some confusion among the different corps.  Fearing the
consequence, under this circumstance, of the further prosecution of a night
attack with troops, then acting together for the first time, I contented
myself with lying on the field that night; and at four in the morning assumed
a stronger position about two miles nearer the city."  This was an orderly
withdrawl.  Jackson left behind the Seventh Infantry to serve as a screen and
rear guard between him and the British.  Latour notes in his memoirs that the
Seventh performed their duties admirably losing no opportunity to annoy the
British.  I feel Jackson withdrew not for fear of British musketry but
because his force was acting in concert together for the first time. He had
only two Regular Regiments with him, and some Marines. While they were used
to close order action the rest were militia and volunteers. Good for surprise
and open order fighting but for the most part not disciplined linear or
column attack.  Surprise had worked to his advantage, now British
manouevering discipline and superior numbers would work against him in the
open.  Again from Jackson's report: "As the safety of the city will depend on
the fate of this army, it must not be incautiously exposed."
Technically the battle is a draw.  The British Army holds the field but the
American Army has displayed an agressiveness unexpected of them including the
use of the bayonet by the Seventh when the British came dangerously close to
capturing not only the American Battery but Jackson as well!  The attack
places caution in the British forces giving Jackson the time he desperately
needs to construct a line of defense.

2.  The British victory on the west bank is carried out by the bayonet, not
musketry.  Tim Pickles in his book offers the following.  "To ensure the
attack was as fast as possible it was ordered to be carried out by the
bayonet alone."
Perhaps the best example of toe-to toe slugging it out is Lundy's Lane, but I
leave that subject to those who know the battle better than I :)

Hope to see you in Hoosier Land!  As we film the Battle of New Orleans on
that dead ringer for the swamps of Chalmette---the farmland of Indiana!  "Oh
the cannons roar tonight along the Wabash"---or something like that :)
All the best,
Steve Abolt
7th USILHA
visit our 7th Infantry webpage at www.cottonbalers.lynchburg.net

Roger,

We intend to send a small contingent from Fort William.  We will have two
red coats (deMeuron's) and 7 green jackets.  Our small force of GLI will
have to pretend to be 95th for the weekend.

We have being going to York since it re-started, a couple of years ago.  We
are looking forward to doing something a little differant.  If we have lots
of fun, as we always do, we may wish to join in on another Nepoleonic event.

We do try to limit our events to one per month, though.  We do have a bit
of a drive to get to Toronto.

Cheers!

YMH&OS

Jim Keigher
Corps of Canadian Voyageurs
Fort William

God Save the King!

Hey Stevo-
I trust the ill fated winds of the past few days haven't affected the 7th
US. As to my comments they were just a response to the quest for examples
of where "superior musketry" carried the day for the British.

1. The night Battle of 23 Dec. 1814: OK the Americans suprised the British
who were in the process of landing infantry. Fog, confusion on the British
side turns into a defensive strategy that holds the American advance (which
was also confused) and as more British troops land the tide turns against
the Americans and they leave the area. Of course Jackson is going to call
it a strategic withdrawl and blame things on the fog in his official
report, he sure ain't going to say he got his butt kicked. Was the suprise
attack wise? Hell yes it was bloddy brilliant! His best chance was to
defeat the British before they could establish a position. He knew he could
not meet and defeat the British in the open (wanting to conserve his troops
and all ;>) and as the battle progressed that was the position he found
himself in so he prudently withdrew. It should be noted that not only did
Jackson have artillary on his side, the British were also being bombarded
from a ship in the river. Although the Americans withdrew the British
commander did not persue for a variety of reasons which made sense at the
time, but in hindsight it is a decision that may have been unfortunate for
the British. The night battle may well be considered a draw because the
British did not immediately persue and Jackson was given time to prepare a
defensive position. However in the context of the question asked for an
example of "superior British musketry" I must conclude that this action
fits the bill.

2.West Bank battle 8 Jan 1815: As the British carried out the attack with a
bayonet charge I will agree that it is not an example of superior British
musketry; But it is an example of superior use of the pointy thing on the
end of the musket!!

Be sure to bring plenty of eye patches, bandanas, arm hooks and a jolly
rodger for the Bucanneer re-make were gonna do in a cornfeild up here!...at
least we will have fun. :)

Cheers
Scott


Scott McDonald
Member/ 93rd Sutherland Highland Regiment of Foot L.H.U.
http://members.aol.com/ninety3rd
<mailto: raintree@...>

In a message dated 05/5/1999 10:33:09 PM, raintree@... writes:

<< Be sure to bring plenty of eye patches, bandanas, arm hooks and a jolly
rodger for the Bucanneer re-make were gonna do in a cornfeild up here!...at
least we will have fun. :) >>

I can't decide whether to be the Fredric March Laffite or the Yul Bynner
Laffitte for "The Bucco-mentary".
:-)

In a message dated 05/5/1999 3:32:51 PM, zorniak@... writes:

<< Here is a message regarding a movie shoot from fellow de Watteville in
the US.

> Hey Don,
>
> I was just contacted that they need about 15 Brits for one of the episodes
> of the Frontier Searies, this one is on the Battle of New Orlenes.  Its
> beeing filmed in Indiana on the weekend of May 15/16 by Director/ Producer
> Gary Foreman.
>
>  This is what I have been told:  The Series will pay $125 a day for two days
> plus two meals and two nights loudgeing. But its best to doublecheck this
> with the below two contacts:
>
>           Gray Foreman can be contacted by Email at  morning.star1@...
> or by Fax at (219) 477-5487  for this May filming only.   They are looking
> for some good British Re-enactors and not hams ::Laughs::
>                                                     Tom .. >>

That is indeed the deal (plus a mileage allowance, plus rental fees for any
extra kit one might have after supplying one complete kit, plus gunpowder for
any firing on set) and make sure they pay you that weekend for your work.
Funny,  now at the last minute they are looking in Canada for workers? After
telling certain other organized Units that due to "budgetary constraints" no
members of said Units outside of Indiana were wanted or needed?
Yes, folks -- remember: it's called Show BUSINESS.

(snip)
>In regards to the French forces or "Evil Empire" at Fort York, I hear they
>are going to set up speakers on the field so when the "Evil Empire" forces
>deploy on the field they can play Darth Vader's theme music.
>(yah I know it was a bad joke but what the hell, isn't there a new Star
>Wars movie coming out?).

I'm laughing!  Just so long as the second tune is "Le Chant du Depart" or
something along those lines.

One of the funniest things I ever saw was at an F&I event.  The very
realistic, but highly unpopular British commander was strutting about with
his men when some Jacobite Highlander started playing Lord Vader's theme on
bagpipes!  Thought I was gonna die.  I don't think his cup ever ran dry all
weekend.

En avant,
Michael

Michael Mathews -- Winona State University
Voice: (507) 285-7585  Fax: (507) 280-5568
------------------------------
"Wit is educated insolence." -- Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)

(snip)
>A few toughts about British musketry and the Brown Bess. Many of our
>thoughts about muskets come from tests conducted with the Brown Bess in
>the late 18th century. The conclusions were that they were exceedingly
>ill bored and you could hit a man sized target at about 80yards but
>never at 150yds. This thought has been applied to all muskets which is
>not true. The Brown Bess was known for its quantity but not for its
>quality, which is bore out in ordinance reports. Another quality of the
>Bess is the windage. The Brits used 14 guage balls in a 11 guage barrel
>which is a third more than the Americans. Again when they talk about the
>sloppy fit of a musket ball I think this applies only to the British.
>When the US used Bess's they used less windage.

I recall reading somewhere, perhaps the Napoleonic Source Book, that the
muzzle velocity of the Bess was 1200 fps while the Charleville was 1400
fps.  So THEORETICALLY the latter was a more accurate weapon.  I would
imagine the American pieces to have a similarly higher muzzle velocity with
less windage.  In this piece the author attempted to explain the British
domination of firefights with the French in Spain as being a result of
superior drill/discipline, rate of fire, and live rounds practice.  So I
would never call the Bess a "great" weapon, just an effective one which in
the hands of a good soldier became great.  What was it the rankers said
about it?  Pointing at the muzzle and then the butt, "the end that kills,
and the end that maims."

Just my two centimes...

Michael

Michael Mathews -- Winona State University
Voice: (507) 285-7585  Fax: (507) 280-5568
------------------------------
"Wit is educated insolence." -- Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)

In a message dated 06/5/1999 6:20:12 AM, mmathews@... writes:

<< What was it the rankers said
about it?  Pointing at the muzzle and then the butt, "the end that kills,
and the end that maims." >>

There's also a soldiers' poem (as Tim will attest):

If you go to Museums,
(theres one in Whitehall)
Its there you will find her
Her back to the wall

As straight as a ramrod
A flint in her teeth
And a faded inscription
On cardboard beneath

And if ever our Soldiers
Had reason to bless
Any arm (save their mothers)
That arm is Brown Bess.

In a message dated 5/5/99 7:35:07 PM Central Daylight Time,
bashore@... writes:

<< Now, if I read this right, an accusation was made about superior British
  musketry.>>

Rob, forgive me for asking but why do you seem to take discussion statements
as insults? Accusation? What do you mean accusation? We are having a serious
historical discussion and I feel another flame war coming on.

  <>

I would suggest that the US troops (very sensibly) did not get themselves
into line to line fire fights with the Brits but on the occasion when they
did the superiority of British training showed. Again this was more in the
field of quantity rather than quality, the best US troops were certainly
equal to the best of the British but the Jefersonian policy of emasculating
the army in favour of the militia was the problem (in my view).

The volley and bayonet charge were also used to good effect at Bladensburg,
North Point and the West Bank at New Orleans.

Cheers

Tim

To All,

> Pointing at the muzzle and then the butt, "the end that kills, and the
end that maims."

If I may make a comment, here.  I have been listening to all sorts of pros
and cons about who's musketry was better.  I do not think that one's
musketry was better than anothers, because of aiming, windage, or anything
like that.  I, personally, do not know, because these are an individuals
skills.  (In fact, men who demonstrated skill in musketry, such as being
able to hit targets at a distance, would be told off to the flank
companies, to serve as lights and grenadiers.)

I do know a little about fire control.  It was one of the first things I
had to learn to command a rifle section (1/3 of a platoon, or about 2
squads and a BAR in the US infantry.)

The theory of British musketry (practice does not always equal theory,) of
the time was based upon the same concept of fire used today.  In fact, you
can trace the idea of a modern company or battalion fire plan back to the
begining of British platoon fire.  That is, the main body is broken up into
small units, each controlled by an NCO or Officer, under the overall
direction of a fire control officer.  The only basic difference is that now
our artillery (battalion mortors, 105's etc.,) are behind us using indirect
fire, instead of "in the line, in sight of the enemy."

The majority of fire fights even take place at the same distances!  Very
rarely do infantry fire fights exceed the 200 metre range, the largest
amount taking place under 100 metres.  That is why, even though my trusty
FAL 7.62 had a 600m apeture, the main battle sight was a simple open leaf
calibrated to 200m.  We never shot at anything farther away that that!

A modern commander will position his sub units with overlapping fields of
fire, focused on the most likely approach of the enemy.  An enemy force,
approaching along a road, through a ravine, etc., would find it's self
caught in a cross fire.  In this manner, a few small units could
effectively hold off a much larger force, as long as their ammunition held
out.

The same thing holds true for our time period.  By having the platoon's
fire individually, concentrating on the advancing enemy column's frontage,
the result can be devastating.

By sequencing the platoons, each Sgt. giving his command to present as the
platoon next to his fires, a continuous volley is sent to the enemy.  In
fact, it can be compared to the volume of fire created by modern weapons.

As an example, lets use a typical battalion, lets say 900 men.  (deMeuron
reported a strength of 1100, and deWattville 1300, others had as few as 600.)

The battalion would be formed up, in line, across a frontage of about 100
yds., with say, two companies held in reserve.  The flanks, in many cases,
are at an incline, to meet the advancing enemy.

There are 10 Companys, 8 in the line, with 80 men firing muskets, the rest
are Sr. NCO's and Officers.  Each is company broken up into 4 platoons, 20
muskets each, under the control of a Sgt.

Given a standard of 3 rounds per minute, (lets be generous here!) each
platoon can put 60 rounds in the air in one minute.  Even with a 10%
misfire rate, you are looking at 54 rds/min times 32 platoons, or about
1728 rds/min across a 100yd frontage.  Aiming has now become irrelevant.

To put it in modern terms, you have the equivalent of 6 Browning 7.62mm
flexibles, each with a cyclic rate of 600 rds/min, firing 10 rd bursts,
into an enemy column.  Who aims a flexible?  We had to kick the sights on
our section Bren, just to prevent the men from trying to aim!

What is important is that the fire is not delivered in one massive blow,
but is a continous thing.  It becomes more withering, and more effective.
Instead of a massed volley being delivered by the whole unit, and being
spent on the front rank of an advancing column, it penetrates, deep into
massed formations.

So, aimed or not, who would want to advance his men into a field of fire,
like that.

The key is co-ordination, dicipline, and training.  In 1812, a soldier's
first duty is to stand in line and load and fire his musket with the rest
of his platoon.  The rest of his tasks are there to keep him out of trouble
when he is not doing just that.

Still, they come on in the same old way, and we meet them in the same old way.

Now, about the Bess and the bayonet . . .

YMH&OS

Jim Keigher
Corps of Canadian Voyageurs
Fort William

God Save the King!

In a message dated 5/5/99 11:06:29 PM Central Daylight Time, SACBG7@...
writes:

<< Tim Pickles in his book offers the following.  "To ensure the
  attack was as fast as possible it was ordered to be carried out by the
  bayonet alone." >>

True but Thornton did give one volley in line before charging, however Steve
you are quite right that this was not a stand up firefight.

Cheers

Tim

In a message dated 5/6/99 1:46:22 AM Central Daylight Time, NINETY3RD@...
writes:

<< << Be sure to bring plenty of eye patches, bandanas, arm hooks and a jolly
  rodger for the Bucanneer re-make were gonna do in a cornfeild up here!...at
  least we will have fun. :) >>

  I can't decide whether to be the Fredric March Laffite or the Yul Bynner
  Laffitte for "The Bucco-mentary".
  :-) >>

But where are we going to get all the Victorian Highlander uniforms from? And
the only RHA uniform I can put my hands on is blue not red!

Shiver me timbers, Jim Lad

(snip)
>The volley and bayonet charge were also used to good effect at Bladensburg,
>North Point and the West Bank at New Orleans.

That brings up something interesting I noticed yesterday reading a brief
account of North Point, and somewhat related to the "aiming" discussion.
In the text of "The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict" by Donald Hickey, it
stated that when General Ross was shot, no quarter was given to American
sharpshooters there after.  Yet when Rifleman Plunkett killed General
Colbert and an aide that stopped to help him in the Peninsular, he was
hailed as a small hero.  Just an interested comparison of definitions of
what's fair being dependent on who is receiving the bullet.

Michael

Michael Mathews -- Winona State University
Voice: (507) 285-7585  Fax: (507) 280-5568
------------------------------
"Wit is educated insolence." -- Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)

In a message dated 5/6/99 8:12:31 AM Central Daylight Time,
mmathews@... writes:

<< One of the funniest things I ever saw was at an F&I event.  The very
  realistic, but highly unpopular British commander was strutting about with
  his men when some Jacobite Highlander started playing Lord Vader's theme on
  bagpipes!  Thought I was gonna die.  I don't think his cup ever ran dry all
>>


I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Cheers

In a message dated 5/6/99 8:20:12 AM Central Daylight Time,
mmathews@... writes:

<< So THEORETICALLY the latter was a more accurate weapon.  I would
  imagine the American pieces to have a similarly higher muzzle velocity with
  less windage.  In this piece the author attempted to explain the British
  domination of firefights with the French in Spain as being a result of
  superior drill/discipline, rate of fire, and live rounds practice.  So I
  would never call the Bess a "great" weapon, just an effective one which in
  the hands of a good soldier became great.  What was it the rankers said
  about it?  Pointing at the muzzle and then the butt, "the end that kills,
  and the end that maims." >>


The thing to remember is that at the time the fighting unit was not the
soldier and his musket but the Colonel and his regiment. For the majority its
the weight of shot not is accuracy that counts.

Cheers

Tim

In a message dated 06/5/1999 7:49:22 AM, BritcomHMP@... writes:

><< << Be sure to bring plenty of eye patches, bandanas, arm hooks and a
>jolly
> rodger for the Bucanneer re-make were gonna do in a cornfeild up here!...at
> least we will have fun. :) >>
>
> I can't decide whether to be the Fredric March Laffite or the Yul Bynner
>
> Laffitte for "The Bucco-mentary".
> :-) >>
>
>But where are we going to get all the Victorian Highlander uniforms from?
>And
>the only RHA uniform I can put my hands on is blue not red!
>
>Shiver me timbers, Jim Lad

Not to mention the Prince Valiant wigs for the Highlanders (or the
about-to-take-flight feather bonnets, depending on the version)!
An'  I jest cain't wait tuh be thar an' see thu Brits line up an' git mowed
down by all them thar dog-on-head funteersmuhn, heee-yuck! Now that's
histuree!
Yep, I looooove makin' moovees! Hay Margeee! I'm quittin my arckeetectural
job so's I kin go bee a moveee star! I'll do anuhthin tuh be on TeeVee!
;-)

All these "Riflemen"!

Uhhh, (HUMOUR alert- engage laughing and face muscles, everybody)

... how many "Riflemen" attending Ft York will have Baker rifles, swords,
know Rifle tactics and light infantry drill, and WILL promise not to engage
in (choke, gag) volley fire a la line infantry? Even the British Rifles
groups have taken a strong stand against this sort of thing.  I know of at
least a couple of Sgt Pudwell's gents who are possessors of Bakers, and will
be attending as 95th as well.

Hmm. Maybe we 3/95th guys (those insured and incorporated as such) should
get some LI accoutrements, break out the Besses and come out to War of 1812
events as Glengarys? Hey- why not? Maybe we should don kilts and dub
ourselves 93rd Highlanders? It'll be fun. If everybody else seems to be
following the policy of "hey, show up as whatever you want to be", we could
do that too?

Serious question here: some well-trained units _might_ be able to pull it
off playing 95th, but suppose "Moose and Squirrel" types see this, hear
about it, and decide, "Hey- if they can get away with it- why can't we just
show up in whatever gear we call "Rifles" gear, run about like yahoos with
Hawkens (yes, I've heard about Mississinewa) and relive the TV show called
Sharpe? Who says we can't?"

Kinda makes me wonder why we 3/95th types bother to get the unit going,
spend lots of time, money, sweat, drill, etc. when anybody can just show up
and call themselves the same thing. Maybe we should just stick to going over
to Europe once a year, so as not to rain on anybody's parade over here.

I just had a guy join last week, because he wants to "do it right". I hope
he won't be disappointed, when he's kitted out after spending a LOT of cash
and time and starts attending events in North America.... he could get quite
a shock.

I hope this doesn't offend anyone, but- put yourselves in my place, please.

"Indians, Indians- we're surrounded by Indians, Tonto!"

"What you mean WE, Ole Keemosavee?"

Roger
3/95th Foot (Rifles)

or maybe we should become the 5/60?

  -----Original Message-----
From: Jim Keigher <jkeigher@...>
To: WarOf1812@onelist.com <WarOf1812@onelist.com>
Date: 06 May 1999 00:57
Subject: [WarOf1812] Who's comming to Fort York?


>From: Jim Keigher <jkeigher@...>
>
>Roger,
>
>We intend to send a small contingent from Fort William.  We will have two
>red coats (deMeuron's) and 7 green jackets.  Our small force of GLI will
>have to pretend to be 95th for the weekend.
>
>We have being going to York since it re-started, a couple of years ago.  We
>are looking forward to doing something a little differant.  If we have lots
>of fun, as we always do, we may wish to join in on another Nepoleonic
event.
>
>We do try to limit our events to one per month, though.  We do have a bit
>of a drive to get to Toronto.
>
>Cheers!
>
>YMH&OS
>
>Jim Keigher
>Corps of Canadian Voyageurs
>Fort William
>
>God Save the King!
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Always wanted to set up a book club, but can't find the time?
>http://www.onelist.com
>Create an online book club through ONElist.
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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...
>

Concerning the N.O. Movie:  I am having a difficult time acquiring enough
Turkey gizzards and ague powder---Have been practicing my line
delivery---"Drink your milk Andy."  I however will be drinking good Tennessee
bourbon!
All the best,
S.

In a message dated 5/6/99 9:51:37 AM Central Daylight Time,
mmathews@... writes:

<< In the text of "The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict" by Donald Hickey, it
  stated that when General Ross was shot, no quarter was given to American
  sharpshooters there after.  Yet when Rifleman Plunkett killed General
  Colbert and an aide that stopped to help him in the Peninsular, he was
  hailed as a small hero.  Just an interested comparison of definitions of
  what's fair being dependent on who is receiving the bullet. >>

Personally I would love to see the original of this 'order.' No one knows who
shot Ross (despite the local legends) he had left the line of battle to bring
up the main column. The column found him mortally wounded on the road. He had
certainly been shot by a skulker but who, or whether that person was even in
any US formation is a matter of speculation.

Cheers

Tim

>From: BritcomHMP@...
>
>In a message dated 5/6/99 9:51:37 AM Central Daylight Time,
>mmathews@... writes:
>
><< In the text of "The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict" by Donald Hickey, it
> stated that when General Ross was shot, no quarter was given to American
> sharpshooters there after.  Yet when Rifleman Plunkett killed General
> Colbert and an aide that stopped to help him in the Peninsular, he was
> hailed as a small hero.  Just an interested comparison of definitions of
> what's fair being dependent on who is receiving the bullet. >>
>
>Personally I would love to see the original of this 'order.' No one knows who
>shot Ross (despite the local legends) he had left the line of battle to bring
>up the main column. The column found him mortally wounded on the road. He had
>certainly been shot by a skulker but who, or whether that person was even in
>any US formation is a matter of speculation.

The source given for the section is Gleig, "Narrative of the Campaigns",
178.  An unidentified British officer is also quoted as having written, "It
is impossible to conceive the effect which this melancholy spectacle
produced throughout the army."  So perhaps it was a battlefield phenom
rather than a specific order.  But I recall the outrage the death of
General Brock created towards the evil Yanks who actually targeting
officers!  Yet the 95th (and others) had been picking off officers and NCOs
with abandon in the Peninsular for years.

Anyone for the topic of "infernal devices"?  i.e. anything weapon the
British didn't have or use?  ;-)  (and I AM teasing here)

TTFN,
Michael

Michael Mathews -- Winona State University
Voice: (507) 285-7585  Fax: (507) 280-5568
------------------------------
"Wit is educated insolence." -- Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)

>From: "Roger Fuller" <fullerfamily@...>
>
>All these "Riflemen"!
>
>Uhhh, (HUMOUR alert- engage laughing and face muscles, everybody)
>
>... how many "Riflemen" attending Ft York will have Baker rifles, swords,
>know Rifle tactics and light infantry drill, and WILL promise not to engage
>in (choke, gag) volley fire a la line infantry? Even the British Rifles
>groups have taken a strong stand against this sort of thing.  I know of at
>least a couple of Sgt Pudwell's gents who are possessors of Bakers, and will
>be attending as 95th as well.
>
(snip balance)

I understand your concern Roger, but it comes back to the bugaboo we've
fretted and stewed and steamed over.  This particular Fort York is a
Napoleonic event, and since the GLI didn't fight the French, then they will
pose as a near look-alike.  You have the luxury of saying that your
regiment served in both campaigns, others aren't so lucky (or tolerated).

As for their drill and knowledge, based on the admittedly few I've seen in
action, they'll do a damn fine job keeping up the tradition.

Michael

Michael Mathews -- Winona State University
Voice: (507) 285-7585  Fax: (507) 280-5568
------------------------------
"Wit is educated insolence." -- Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)

>Uhhh, (HUMOUR alert- engage laughing and face muscles, everybody)

The following is in the timber of Monty Python's "Architect Sketch."
(In the background, 4 quick whistle blasts, reapeated 4 times, followed by
2 short and one long.)
==================================================================
I can see that we are not going to be welcome.  It is a pity, as we enjoy
OUR fort, at York.  Most especially the barracks where the GLI where
billited.  It can be real nice to stay in the same building that your
regiment occupied 185 years ago.

What little matter that we are only "Fencibles" and not real soldiers, at
all.  Just a bunch of farmers (Catholic Scots, at that!) who are pretending
to be soldiers.

Perhaps it is best, as we would only be in your way, as you lead the
desparate attack to capture your Eagle!  Maybe we can assist the surgeon or
guard the baggage?

I wouldn't be a bloody rifleman now if you paid me.  You bunch of arrogant,
snotty, twoface, pimplebottomed, woosie toads.  You and your high and
mighty Baker's.  Your Sharpie this and Sharpie that!  You make me sick,
with your gawd awful attitude.

NO!  I didn't mean that!  I'm sorry!  I lost my head for a momment!  I
really do want to be in the Rifles!  Please!  Please!  I've got my own
sword!  It's a nice one too!  Oh, Please!

---------------------------------------------
(This is not just for) Roger,

We shall do our best not to embarass you, Roger.

But, how else can we check it out, though, to see if it is something we
want to do?  The best way is to attend an event, and experiance what's
happening.

As I said, we would only consider doing Napoleonic, again, if we felt that
it was something we wanted to do.  But you have struck a nerve.

Rule No. 1 - It is only a hobby.
Rule No. 2 - If you are not having fun, see rule No. 1.

I have seen in the past, even in my own group, people showing up for
events, and not being made welcome.

I have been to many 1812 events, and found open arms, and lots of
comradeship.  I have also seen some individual units who are closed and
tight.  They only wish to work with themselves.  These units do not tend to
survive.  It is the more open ones who seem to thrive and prosper.

Many times we have set up in our Corps of Voyageur persona, and welcomed
other's who portray voyageurs into our ranks.  These individuals are
shocked to find out that we actually do drill, and enforce discipline in
the ranks.  We have Sgts. who are bulleys and Officers who are gentlemen.
They quickly loose their preconception that the Corps was a group of
unruley savages.

But we would never turn them away, just because they came to us that way.
The trick is to accept them for what they are, and work with them.  You can
only show them who you are, and what you do, and hope that this will
encourage them to do the same.

If we like what we see, then we will want to be like you.  If we do not
like what we see, then we will not come back.  This holds true for any
group, any Re-Enactment Society, any event, any time period, and is not
particular to York, Napoleonic, 1812 or You and I.

If we want to encourage people to join our hobby, we must first make them
welcome.  Only when they are made to feel welcome and wanted, will we be
able to help them along to a level of "Professionalism."

Yours, aye,

Jim Keigher
Corps of Canadian Voyageurs
Fort William

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Mathews <mmathews@...>
To: WarOf1812@onelist.com <WarOf1812@onelist.com>
Date: 06 May 1999 11:56
Subject: Re: [WarOf1812] Who's comming to Fort York?


>From: mmathews@... (Michael Mathews)
>
>>From: "Roger Fuller" <fullerfamily@...>
>>
>>All these "Riflemen"!
>>
>>Uhhh, (HUMOUR alert- engage laughing and face muscles, everybody)
>>
>>... how many "Riflemen" attending Ft York will have Baker rifles, swords,
>>know Rifle tactics and light infantry drill, and WILL promise not to
engage
>>in (choke, gag) volley fire a la line infantry? Even the British Rifles
>>groups have taken a strong stand against this sort of thing.  I know of at
>>least a couple of Sgt Pudwell's gents who are possessors of Bakers, and
will
>>be attending as 95th as well.
>>
>(snip balance)
>
>I understand your concern Roger, but it comes back to the bugaboo we've
>fretted and stewed and steamed over.  This particular Fort York is a
>Napoleonic event, and since the GLI didn't fight the French, then they will
>pose as a near look-alike.  You have the luxury of saying that your
>regiment served in both campaigns, others aren't so lucky (or tolerated).

Michael,

Hey- I've no problem with it, but I'm going to look funny at this event as
the only guy with "95" anywhere on a uniform.....(pack, canteen....)
>
>As for their drill and knowledge, based on the admittedly few I've seen in
>action, they'll do a damn fine job keeping up the tradition.
>
>Michael
>
Oh, I know THEY will- the Glens are a great group, and will be able to do it
quite well, but what happens when the "lone wolves" start coming out of the
wood work? They are the ones that cheapen all our hard work. Would this be a
good reason for a good umbrella group to make sure we are all operating from
the same playbook? Uh oh......

I gotta be honest here; I've had AWI types saying to me, "You want to to get
involved with 1812 and Napoleonic? Very scary scene- no quality control at
all, and very dangerous on the field." These doomsayers are wrong! (Right?)

Case in point: just suppose a really unsafe, untrained bunch of individuals
in godawful uniforms and kit show up at an event and claim to be the 21eme?
And they have more people than your group, and have people that "outrank"
you? What do you do? Do you field with them and hope nothing goes wrong? Or
do you get the hell out of there?

How about if somebody shows up in a 21eme officer's uniform and tries to
order you guys around? This sort of thing has happened to the British 95th
group, and it also happened at a RevWar event I was at last year. The last I
saw of the kid at the AWI event that tried ordering people around, a bunch
of Redcoats were trying to run him up a flagpole by the back of his
underwear! :^)

(Not a policy I'd advocate.....)

Roger
3/95th Foot

or maybe the Royal Elephant Corps- I'm sure nobody's doing THAT!
:^).....(JOKE JOKE JOKE!!!!!!!)

>From: "Roger Fuller" <fullerfamily@...>

(snip snip)
>>Michael
>>
>Oh, I know THEY will- the Glens are a great group, and will be able to do it
>quite well, but what happens when the "lone wolves" start coming out of the
>wood work? They are the ones that cheapen all our hard work. Would this be a
>good reason for a good umbrella group to make sure we are all operating from
>the same playbook? Uh oh......

Shut your festering gob you git!  (God, I love Monty Python <g>)

>I gotta be honest here; I've had AWI types saying to me, "You want to to get
>involved with 1812 and Napoleonic? Very scary scene- no quality control at
>all, and very dangerous on the field." These doomsayers are wrong! (Right?)

I hope so, but I have seen things that made me uneasy.  I do however think
we have good quality control AT THIS POINT AND TIME with units in the
Brigade.  There is this one chap who put his uniform together with a glue
gun, for real.

>Case in point: just suppose a really unsafe, untrained bunch of individuals
>in godawful uniforms and kit show up at an event and claim to be the 21eme?
>And they have more people than your group, and have people that "outrank"
>you? What do you do? Do you field with them and hope nothing goes wrong? Or
>do you get the hell out of there?

First we decide if we can crush them.  If not, we keep far far away.  But
kidding aside I understand.  I hate to keep coming back to my F&I
experience, but it's my strongest.  Last year the Royal Americans had a
grand encampment.  Companies from all over came to work together.  All the
same regiment, all the same uniforms and drill, right?  Wrong, and some of
the things that were "exchanged" there definately did not have a positive
effect.  Not that they were unsafe, they just many views on drill and
uniform appearance.

>How about if somebody shows up in a 21eme officer's uniform and tries to
>order you guys around? This sort of thing has happened to the British 95th
>group, and it also happened at a RevWar event I was at last year. The last I
>saw of the kid at the AWI event that tried ordering people around, a bunch
>of Redcoats were trying to run him up a flagpole by the back of his
>underwear! :^)

Funny you should mention that, our regimental command in England has told
me in the strongest terms not to follow someone just because they have
braid.  We are extremely light in officers, with only three for our
world-wide 180 membership, so it's easy to be out-ranked.  But they
encourage rebellion, and Madame Guillotine is always an option.  (smirk)

>(Not a policy I'd advocate.....)

At least not in front of witnesses.

>or maybe the Royal Elephant Corps- I'm sure nobody's doing THAT!
>:^).....(JOKE JOKE JOKE!!!!!!!)

Kree-ga Tantor, Tarzan bundullo!  (Comic book reference from my wasted youth.)

Michael
"Right, how to defend yourself from someone with a bunch of rasberries!"

Michael Mathews -- Winona State University
Voice: (507) 285-7585  Fax: (507) 280-5568
------------------------------
"Wit is educated insolence." -- Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Keigher <jkeigher@...>
To: WarOf1812@onelist.com <WarOf1812@onelist.com>
Date: 06 May 1999 12:09
Subject: Re: [WarOf1812] Who's comming to Fort York?


>From: Jim Keigher <jkeigher@...>
>
>>Uhhh, (HUMOUR alert- engage laughing and face muscles, everybody)


Well, I attempted it, but humour sometimes falls flat in email.


>
>The following is in the timber of Monty Python's "Architect Sketch."
>(In the background, 4 quick whistle blasts, reapeated 4 times, followed by
>2 short and one long.)
>==================================================================
>I can see that we are not going to be welcome.



Say what? Hey, Jim- I'm on your side, but I'm not the guy running the event.
As far as I'm concerned, all are welcome. I didn't mean YOU guys, I'm
concerned about the Moose and Squirrel types showing up. I have dealt with
them a lot in this hobby, and they can be pretty dangerous!

>But we would never turn them away, just because they came to us that way.
>The trick is to accept them for what they are, and work with them.  You can
>only show them who you are, and what you do, and hope that this will
>encourage them to do the same.

Well, when we Sweeps get large enough in numbers, we can do that.

  Right now, we are a small group busy getting ready for Waterloo in 2000.
I've got two guys who have uniforms, but no Bakers or accoutrements. (Bakers
take at least 4-7 months to get) Others have Bakers but no other gear, but
bits are coming in as we speak. We've been getting, among other things, our
accoutrements from the UK, but I feel I can do a better job, so, I'm
learning how to do leatherwork from a gent down here named Roy Najecki, who
is the Sgt. in the AWI group I'm in, the 40th Foot Lt Compy
  http://members.aol.com/HM40thfoot/ ) We'll see what happens with that!
>
>If we like what we see, then we will want to be like you.

We're always looking for new members!
  http://www.novarltd.demon.co.uk/webpages/95th.htm )

If we do not
>like what we see, then we will not come back.  This holds true for any
>group, any Re-Enactment Society, any event, any time period, and is not
>particular to York, Napoleonic, 1812 or You and I.

One of the funny things about life is that no matter what one does, there
will be brickbats as well as bouquets from others. I can only get as many
people together of like mind who are willing to put in the time and cash,
and take it from there.
>
>If we want to encourage people to join our hobby, we must first make them
>welcome.  Only when they are made to feel welcome and wanted, will we be
>able to help them along to a level of "Professionalism."

Gee- I can't imagine why somebody wouldn't feel welcome at a Napoleonic
event- for example, the Royal Marines were most accommodating to me last
year when I had neither Baker nor uniform, but provided me with a spare RM
coat, and I hope to be able to repay their kindness sometime. Unfortunately
they aren't going to Ft York....but perhaps we can provide a rifleman's gear
sometime for interested people, when we have spare gear as well.
>
>Yours, aye,
>
>Jim Keigher
>Corps of Canadian Voyageurs
>Fort William


See y'all at Ft York (if I can get up there)
Roger
3/95th

In a message dated 06/5/1999 8:13:24 AM, fullerfamily@... writes:

>If everybody else seems to be
>
>following the policy of "hey, show up as whatever you want to be", we could
>
>do that too?


Well ....  if I could get there I would come as Lt. General Sir Bunny
Wigglesworth...but that's just me....
;-)

To the whiners of the list--

Last weekend a message appeared about ZZZZZZZ how boring it was since the
weather was nice at Longwoods. Greg missed the point that, when we discuss the
US side of the issue from a British vantage, the fur files (Tim can attest)
and perhaps its a bit more interesting. Having written a substantial number of
rebuttals from the US vantage point, I believe I have license to rattle.

If you don't like what you're reading, try asking a question or contributing
(concept!).  I keep saying "I will not read I will not read" (my blood
pressure can only take so much).

But I read on and occasionally have something to share or a different opinion
or information on a subject. And if nothing else, I can always needle the
opposition.

Now see, a slight comment on superior British musketfire has led to a lively
discussion of battle tactics.

Get a grip--

Hey Terry, can I join your censored writers group? Oh but I'm not as special
as you yet.

Betsy Bashore