Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Those French are everywhere! was: RE: [Revlist] Hessian skirmishers

Expand Messages
  • John Welsh
    French speaking Belgium as we know today, didn t exist until much later. In our period, it was part of the Austrian (formerly Spanish) netherlands, until the
    Message 1 of 22 , Jun 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      French speaking Belgium as we know today, didn't exist until much later. In
      our period, it was part of the Austrian (formerly Spanish) netherlands,
      until the French revolutionaries invaded it to counter the European
      counter-revolutionaries, starting with the duke of Brunswick's German army
      threatening the Republique with the restoration of its monarchy. The
      territory was invaded by French armies and a Batavian republic declared.
      During Napoleon's Empire, the French speaking areas were incorporated into
      the Empire, while Napoleon's brother, Louis, reigned as King of Holland.
      After the fall of the Empire, the French speaking netherlands was
      incorporated into Dutch-speaking Holland with a new king. A revolt by the
      French speaking population ensued later, bringing French military
      intervention to protect its interests. A compromise was sought by England,
      giving the French speaking population their own country, the kingdom of the
      Belgians as it was called, under the Coburg dynasty ruling today. Naturally,
      the new kingdom was a friendly buffer state which France sought to protect
      its frontiers. Talleyrand, Napoleon's former foreign minister, was the
      French ambassador to England then, and negotiated the deal that lasts today
      and had something to do with picking its ruling family. Hence little
      Belgium, named for the fierce Germanic tribe, the Belgae, which Caesar had
      encountered arresting its invasion of Gaul (Gallia). The raison d'etre of
      Belgium.
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "bdtm2004" <BDTMorrissey@...>
      To: <Revlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Monday, May 31, 2004 3:51 PM
      Subject: Re: Those French are everywhere! was: RE: [Revlist] Hessian
      skirmishers


      >
      > Robert and John,
      >
      > Thanks for your answers - hugely informative, as always. I've
      > noticed from Hessian-related records in the PRO at Kew that French
      > was the language they used when dealing with the British (and, I
      > would assume, vice versa). It also seems to be the language of the
      > aristocracy and educated classes in the larger and smaller German
      > states.
      >
      > I noticed the point about the sergeant keeping his halberd; were they
      > taken into the field in the early part of the war, by the line and
      > fusilier regiments? I think I've seen references to Hessian officers
      > carrying muskets/fusils, but nothing about whether the NCOs handed in
      > their polearms.
      >
      > I noticed the use of "Forlorn Hope" reading Bruce Burgoyne's "Enemy
      > Views" a little while back. Its English use dates back at least to
      > the Civil Wars of the 1640s and though it later came to mean the lead
      > guys in an attempt to storm a fortification, it could also mean
      > isolated "point" units on a conventional battlefield, often used as
      > a "tripwire" to disclose an enemy attack, or to disrupt an attacking
      > enemy formation before it reached the main body - a kind of suicide
      > skirmish line.
      >
      > Finally, to confirm what John said about the use of "flanquer" in the
      > French forces, it also crops up in the Belgian (South Netherlandish)
      > troops at Waterloo, some of whom were ex-French Army and definitely
      > French-speaking, as opposed to the Dutch (North Netherlandish).
      >
      > Once again, many thanks for your time on this.
      >
      > Brendan Morrissey
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Visit the RevList Homepage, which includes a list of sutlers, RevList
      member photos, FAQ, etc., at
      >
      > http://www.liming.org/revlist/
      >
      > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: please send a message to
      > Revlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > with "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • bdtm2004
      ... later. In John, Sure - I wasn t suggesting the Belgian in Dutch-Belgian directly mirrored the modern state, merely that it had a French influence, as
      Message 2 of 22 , Jun 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Revlist@yahoogroups.com, "John Welsh" <jbwelsh@c...> wrote:
        > French speaking Belgium as we know today, didn't exist until much
        later. In


        John,

        Sure - I wasn't suggesting the "Belgian" in "Dutch-Belgian" directly
        mirrored the modern state, merely that it had a French influence, as
        evidenced by the fact that they didn't use the Dutch word
        for "flanquers" (assuming that there was one).

        That Talleyrand was a real survivor wasn't he! Definitely someone to
        be standing next to if the ship starts sinking........

        Regards

        Brendan Morrissey
      • robert a selig
        Bonjour, and thank you very much for this clarification. The controles of Lauzun s Legion do not use the term passer par les baguettes, but you find passé
        Message 3 of 22 , Jun 2, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Bonjour,

          and thank you very much for this clarification.
          The controles of Lauzun's Legion do not use the term "passer par les
          baguettes," but you find "passé par les verges," "passé aux verger, "
          and "passé par le courroy," for the punishment which most dictionnaries
          translate simply as "running the gauntlet."
          All of the men were "chasse" after that punishment, except possibly for
          the one who had suffered the punishment on board the Provence. I can't
          find an entry that would fit the date, e.g., immediately after arrival
          in Newport, in the controle.
          Lauzun's Legion was part of the Navy and would therefore have been under
          Navy regulations, certainly on board ship.
          Thanks for this clarification!
          Bob
          ============
          André Gousse wrote:

          >Bonjour!
          >
          >One should really look at the words used to describe the punishment.
          >In this case, it is said that the soldier was to run the naval
          >gauntlet, in French "courir la bouline". The equivalent for the
          >infantry or cavalry was "passer par les baguettes", litterally to be
          >beaten with the ramrods. "Passer par les verges" was also sometimes
          >used indicating perhaps the use of tree branches instead of ramrods.
          >
          >If I remember correctly, any soldier onboard a ship was then under
          >the Navy regulations and could be punished as a sailor if he
          >committed a crime aboard. On land, the punishment of naval infantry
          >were similar to those of the "troupes de terre" (the regular
          >infantry"). This at least was the case during the Seven Years War.
          >For example, soldiers of the "troupes de la Marine" in Canada were
          >subject tot he same 1727 royal regulations concerning military
          >crimes and received the same punishment. This differed from naval
          >regulations. Had this changed by the time of the American Revolution?
          >
          >Just some thoughts on this topic...
          >
          >André Gousse
          >Milice de Chambly (SRHQ)
          >www.geocities.com/lasrhq
          >
          >--- In Revlist@yahoogroups.com, robert a selig <rselig@r...> wrote:
          >
          >
          >>Salut,
          >>
          >>that's a good question:
          >>
          >>>For a soldier, I wonder if they would run the gauntlet army style, using ramrods to beat the culprit, or if they did it navy style with knotted pieces of rope.
          >>>



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • André Gousse
          Interesting stuff: passé par le courroy, would mean beaten with musket slings. I remember seing something about this where the slings were used instead of
          Message 4 of 22 , Jun 3, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Interesting stuff: "passé par le courroy," would mean beaten with
            musket slings. I remember seing something about this where the slings
            were used instead of ramrods or small sticks. Interesting also to
            note that the soldiers were then expelled from the regiment after
            their punishment.

            Military discipline was harsh, no doubt about it. I still vividly
            recall my reaction to reading the punishment for taking the Lord's
            name in vain: piercing of the tongue with a red-hot iron! Some kids
            pay good money for that kind of stuff today! :-)

            André Gousse
            Milice de Chambly (SRHQ)
            www.geocities.com/lasrhq



            --- In Revlist@yahoogroups.com, robert a selig <rselig@r...> wrote:
            > Bonjour,
            >
            > and thank you very much for this clarification.
            > The controles of Lauzun's Legion do not use the term "passer par
            les
            > baguettes," but you find "passé par les verges," "passé aux
            verger, "
            > and "passé par le courroy," for the punishment which most
            dictionnaries
            > translate simply as "running the gauntlet."
            > All of the men were "chasse" after that punishment, except possibly
            for
            > the one who had suffered the punishment on board the Provence. I
            can't
            > find an entry that would fit the date, e.g., immediately after
            arrival
            > in Newport, in the controle.
            > Lauzun's Legion was part of the Navy and would therefore have been
            under
            > Navy regulations, certainly on board ship.
            > Thanks for this clarification!
            > Bob
            > ============
            > André Gousse wrote:
            >
            > >Bonjour!
            > >
            > >One should really look at the words used to describe the
            punishment.
            > >In this case, it is said that the soldier was to run the naval
            > >gauntlet, in French "courir la bouline". The equivalent for the
            > >infantry or cavalry was "passer par les baguettes", litterally to
            be
            > >beaten with the ramrods. "Passer par les verges" was also
            sometimes
            > >used indicating perhaps the use of tree branches instead of
            ramrods.
            > >
            > >If I remember correctly, any soldier onboard a ship was then under
            > >the Navy regulations and could be punished as a sailor if he
            > >committed a crime aboard. On land, the punishment of naval
            infantry
            > >were similar to those of the "troupes de terre" (the regular
            > >infantry"). This at least was the case during the Seven Years War.
            > >For example, soldiers of the "troupes de la Marine" in Canada were
            > >subject tot he same 1727 royal regulations concerning military
            > >crimes and received the same punishment. This differed from naval
            > >regulations. Had this changed by the time of the American
            Revolution?
            > >
            > >Just some thoughts on this topic...
            > >
            > >André Gousse
            > >Milice de Chambly (SRHQ)
            > >www.geocities.com/lasrhq
            > >
            > >--- In Revlist@yahoogroups.com, robert a selig <rselig@r...> wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > >>Salut,
            > >>
            > >>that's a good question:
            > >>
            > >>>For a soldier, I wonder if they would run the gauntlet army
            style, using ramrods to beat the culprit, or if they did it navy
            style with knotted pieces of rope.
            > >>>
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • bdtm2004
            Hi, Fascinating thread, and particularly in terms of the inclusiveness of French punishments - far more audience participation than in the British
            Message 5 of 22 , Jun 3, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi,

              Fascinating thread, and particularly in terms of the "inclusiveness"
              of French punishments - far more "audience participation" than in the
              British services.

              From my Napoleonic researches, I had always thought that the French
              did not believe in corporal punishment. Clearly this was not the
              case at this time - did it change with their Revolution, or did
              Napoleon abolish it (or did it remain unofficially)?

              Regards

              Brendan Morrissey
            • John Welsh
              My understanding is that French officers were forbidden to strike their soldiers. However, punishment for infractors was in order following a sentence imposed
              Message 6 of 22 , Jun 3, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                My understanding is that French officers were forbidden to strike their
                soldiers. However, punishment for infractors was in order following a
                sentence imposed after a lawful court martial. Deserters who are apprehended
                would be shot. Rochambeau ordered the executions of one or two deserters in
                the American campaign. A number, particularly from the German speaking
                Regiment Royal Deux-Ponts, melted into the numerous German populations of
                Pennsylania to become Americans "immigrants". One reason that the regiment
                was brought to America was that he had hoped to enroll deserters from the
                Hessian regiments serving Britain. Hessian soldiers deserted too, but not to
                the French regiment.
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "bdtm2004" <BDTMorrissey@...>
                To: <Revlist@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 8:55 AM
                Subject: [Revlist] Re: French punishment (was Running the gauntlet)


                > Hi,
                >
                > Fascinating thread, and particularly in terms of the "inclusiveness"
                > of French punishments - far more "audience participation" than in the
                > British services.
                >
                > From my Napoleonic researches, I had always thought that the French
                > did not believe in corporal punishment. Clearly this was not the
                > case at this time - did it change with their Revolution, or did
                > Napoleon abolish it (or did it remain unofficially)?
                >
                > Regards
                >
                > Brendan Morrissey
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Visit the RevList Homepage, which includes a list of sutlers, RevList
                member photos, FAQ, etc., at
                >
                > http://www.liming.org/revlist/
                >
                > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: please send a message to
                > Revlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                > with "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • robert a selig
                Salut, you re absolutely correct, the French didn t believe in corporal punishment and it was used very sparcely. The French preferred arrest. There is an
                Message 7 of 22 , Jun 3, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Salut,

                  you're absolutely correct, the French didn't believe in corporal
                  punishment and it was used very sparcely. The French preferred arrest.
                  There is an anecdote (Can't find the source just now) that while in
                  AMerica an old grenadier committed suicide out of shame after the
                  vicomte de Rochambeau hit him with the flat of his sabre. The comte de
                  Lauberdiere, a 21-year-old ADC to Rochambeau recorded with deep disgust
                  how some officers of the Bourbonnais had metal rods made for themselves
                  to hit soldiers with. In Rochambeau's Order Book the maximum number of
                  blows with the flat of a saber mentioned for punishment is 25. The only
                  other case of corporal punishment such as flogging, gauntlet or
                  otherwise -- outside Lauzun's Legion -- that I have ever come across is
                  the flogging of a few deserters from the Royal Deux-Ponts early in the
                  1781 campaign (June).
                  Lauzun's Legion is different - in may ways, not just corporal
                  punishment. It had more soldiers executed, for desertion, murder, etc -
                  6 - than died in battle or from battle-related wounds - 5. The only
                  officer of the Legion killed was shot in retaliation in Westchester
                  County in July 1781 by the brother of a local blacksmith, who had been
                  killed by hussars because he refused to shoe their horses on a Sunday
                  morning. (The smithy was later bought by William (?) Smith, the
                  never-do-well son-in-law of John Adams). Out of about 750 men, about 130
                  deserted, almost half of all of Rochambeau's deserters. You get the picture.
                  As far as the general conduct of the French forces is concerned, here's
                  what Dr. James Tilton wrote to Captain Thomas Rodney on 16 December 1781:

                  "It must be mortifying to our poor fellows to observe the
                  comfortable and happy life of French soldiers. They appear on parade
                  every day like fine gentlemen, as neat as their officers, and hardly to
                  be distinguished from them. They are paid once a week, and by their
                  happy countenance appear to want nothing. A sentinel is not allowed to
                  stand upon duty without a warm watch coat in addition to his other
                  clothing. The officers treat the soldiers with attention, humanity and
                  respect, and appear to employ all the means necessary to inspire them
                  with sentiments of honor. Except some horse jockeying and plundering at
                  the reduction of York, I have heard of no stealing among them. Theft is
                  said to be a crime held in universal abhorrence by them. I have not seen
                  or heard of any instance yet of a french soldier being whipped. Their
                  desertions, I believe, have been rare, and their sickness but little.
                  When will our army bear the comparison?"

                  Bob
                  ===================
                  bdtm2004 wrote:

                  >Hi,
                  >
                  >Fascinating thread, and particularly in terms of the "inclusiveness"
                  >of French punishments - far more "audience participation" than in the
                  >British services.
                  >
                  >>From my Napoleonic researches, I had always thought that the French
                  >did not believe in corporal punishment. Clearly this was not the
                  >case at this time - did it change with their Revolution, or did
                  >Napoleon abolish it (or did it remain unofficially)?
                  >
                  >Regards
                  >
                  >Brendan Morrissey
                  >
                • John Welsh
                  The colonel commandant of the Regiment Bourbonnais was the marquis de Laval during the American campaign. The vicomte de Rochambeau referred to in a recent
                  Message 8 of 22 , Jun 3, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    The colonel commandant of the Regiment Bourbonnais was the marquis de Laval
                    during the American campaign. The vicomte de Rochambeau referred to in a
                    recent posting was the colonel en second of the regiment, and son of
                    lieutenant-general le comte de Rochambeau, commander of the corps
                    expeditionaire in America. His son served for the duration of the campaign
                    and for his "belle conduit" at Yorktown was promoted to the colonelcy of the
                    Regiment Saintonge in 1782, also serving in America. A year later he became
                    the colonel of the Royal Auvergne, also present in America, which was
                    general Rochambeau's former command. For its conduct in the storming of
                    Redoute #9, the regiment was awarded the right to bear the honor of "Royal"
                    by the king. During the French revolution, he was promoted to general, then
                    lieutenant general and Governor and Captain-General of St. Domingo. Later he
                    served in the Napoleonic wars, and was killed by a cannon ball at the battle
                    of Leipzig in 1813. Sic transit gloria mundi.

                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "robert a selig" <rselig@...>
                    To: <Revlist@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 4:28 PM
                    Subject: Re: [Revlist] Re: French punishment (was Running the gauntlet)


                    > Salut,
                    >
                    > you're absolutely correct, the French didn't believe in corporal
                    > punishment and it was used very sparcely. The French preferred arrest.
                    > There is an anecdote (Can't find the source just now) that while in
                    > AMerica an old grenadier committed suicide out of shame after the
                    > vicomte de Rochambeau hit him with the flat of his sabre. The comte de
                    > Lauberdiere, a 21-year-old ADC to Rochambeau recorded with deep disgust
                    > how some officers of the Bourbonnais had metal rods made for themselves
                    > to hit soldiers with. In Rochambeau's Order Book the maximum number of
                    > blows with the flat of a saber mentioned for punishment is 25. The only
                    > other case of corporal punishment such as flogging, gauntlet or
                    > otherwise -- outside Lauzun's Legion -- that I have ever come across is
                    > the flogging of a few deserters from the Royal Deux-Ponts early in the
                    > 1781 campaign (June).
                    > Lauzun's Legion is different - in may ways, not just corporal
                    > punishment. It had more soldiers executed, for desertion, murder, etc -
                    > 6 - than died in battle or from battle-related wounds - 5. The only
                    > officer of the Legion killed was shot in retaliation in Westchester
                    > County in July 1781 by the brother of a local blacksmith, who had been
                    > killed by hussars because he refused to shoe their horses on a Sunday
                    > morning. (The smithy was later bought by William (?) Smith, the
                    > never-do-well son-in-law of John Adams). Out of about 750 men, about 130
                    > deserted, almost half of all of Rochambeau's deserters. You get the
                    picture.
                    > As far as the general conduct of the French forces is concerned, here's
                    > what Dr. James Tilton wrote to Captain Thomas Rodney on 16 December 1781:
                    >
                    > "It must be mortifying to our poor fellows to observe the
                    > comfortable and happy life of French soldiers. They appear on parade
                    > every day like fine gentlemen, as neat as their officers, and hardly to
                    > be distinguished from them. They are paid once a week, and by their
                    > happy countenance appear to want nothing. A sentinel is not allowed to
                    > stand upon duty without a warm watch coat in addition to his other
                    > clothing. The officers treat the soldiers with attention, humanity and
                    > respect, and appear to employ all the means necessary to inspire them
                    > with sentiments of honor. Except some horse jockeying and plundering at
                    > the reduction of York, I have heard of no stealing among them. Theft is
                    > said to be a crime held in universal abhorrence by them. I have not seen
                    > or heard of any instance yet of a french soldier being whipped. Their
                    > desertions, I believe, have been rare, and their sickness but little.
                    > When will our army bear the comparison?"
                    >
                    > Bob
                    > ===================
                    > bdtm2004 wrote:
                    >
                    > >Hi,
                    > >
                    > >Fascinating thread, and particularly in terms of the "inclusiveness"
                    > >of French punishments - far more "audience participation" than in the
                    > >British services.
                    > >
                    > >>From my Napoleonic researches, I had always thought that the French
                    > >did not believe in corporal punishment. Clearly this was not the
                    > >case at this time - did it change with their Revolution, or did
                    > >Napoleon abolish it (or did it remain unofficially)?
                    > >
                    > >Regards
                    > >
                    > >Brendan Morrissey
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Visit the RevList Homepage, which includes a list of sutlers, RevList
                    member photos, FAQ, etc., at
                    >
                    > http://www.liming.org/revlist/
                    >
                    > TO UNSUBSCRIBE: please send a message to
                    > Revlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    > with "unsubscribe" in the subject line.
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.