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

Smyth or Duane

Expand Messages
  • tetebu
    Which manual was more widely used during the period, and which is more often used in present interpretation? Do either of these also include castramentation or
    Message 1 of 10 , Jul 30, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Which manual was more widely used during the period, and which is
      more often used in present interpretation? Do either of these also
      include castramentation or is there another good manual for that?

      Steve
    • Armchairadm@cs.com
      As far as I know, Duane s manual was never official adopted, though it was used by a number of State Militias. It may also have been used by some regular
      Message 2 of 10 , Jul 31, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        As far as I know, Duane's manual was never official adopted, though it
        was used by a number of State Militias. It may also have been used by some
        regular units but I'm not sure on that one. Smyth's manual was officially
        adopted, but apparently was never available in enough quantity to reach all
        the US forces.

        Most of the US reenactors along the Niagara Frontier use Smyth.

        I don't believe either manual has anything on castramentation.

        Ed B. 17th US


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • PEGGY MATHEWS
        Yes and no. According to my recently autographed copy of Field of Glory , ;-) Donald Graves has this to say (paraphrased): Duane s A Hand Book for Infantry
        Message 3 of 10 , Jul 31, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Yes and no. According to my recently autographed copy of "Field of Glory", ;-) Donald Graves has this to say (paraphrased): Duane's "A Hand Book for Infantry" came out in 1812 based on the French Reglement of 1791, radically abridged. He couldn't sell it to the US Army because then Secretary of War William Eustis has commissioned Smyth to prepare an official condensation of the same French work, which appeared under the title of "Regulations for the Field Exercises, Manoeuvres and Conduct of the Infantry of the United States Army." This work also included some useful material from von Steuben.

          In 1813 everything became confused. New Secretary of War Armstrong decided his good friend Duane's handbook was the "best preliminary instruction" for infantry. On March 19, 1813 Armstrong ordered the "Hand Book" to be received and observed as the system of Infantry Discipline for the Army of the United States." This offended many officers who regarded Duane as inferior to Smyth (the books, not necessarily the person). So the army that prepared to invade Canada in 1813 had "chosen to interpret the order with great latitude, pretending that the "Hand Book" only supplemented and not replaced Smyth's Regulations, and regimental commanders had gone their own merry way, most continuing with Smyth, some using Duane and others reverting to Steuben. (My italics) One unit commander displayed initiative if not common sense and complied his own manual, while Colonel Eleazar Ripley used the British manual to train his Twenty-First Infantry." Pages 166-167.

          No wonder brigade evolutions were so difficult and command and control made more complicated. As usual it seems with dealing with our (the US) side of the War of 1812 that there are no clear answers.

          Hope this was of interest.

          Michael Mathews

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Armchairadm@...
          Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 9:06 AM
          To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [WarOf1812] Smyth or Duane

          As far as I know, Duane's manual was never official adopted, though it
          was used by a number of State Militias. It may also have been used by some
          regular units but I'm not sure on that one. Smyth's manual was officially
          adopted, but apparently was never available in enough quantity to reach all
          the US forces.

          Most of the US reenactors along the Niagara Frontier use Smyth.

          I don't believe either manual has anything on castramentation.

          Ed B. 17th US


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



          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...

          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Larry Lozon
          From: Ed B. 17th US To: Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 9:50 AM Subject: Re: [WarOf1812] Smyth or Duane
          Message 4 of 10 , Jul 31, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            From: "Ed B. 17th US" <Armchairadm@...>
            To: <WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 9:50 AM
            Subject: Re: [WarOf1812] Smyth or Duane


            As far as I know, Duane's manual was never official adopted, though it
            was used by a number of State Militias. It may also have been used by some
            regular units but I'm not sure on that one. Smyth's manual was officially
            adopted, but apparently was never available in enough quantity to reach all
            the US forces.
            Most of the US reenactors along the Niagara Frontier use Smyth.
            ................

            The Regulars at Put-in-Bay Ohio who garrison Perry's Victory & International
            Peace Memorial (National Park Sevice) use Duane's. I was very surprised and
            asked Gerry Altoff about it and he informed me they have been using it since
            the has been using uniformed interpreters.

            When we raised the 27th USI, we were told that most USA re-enactors
            used the Smyth's Manual so we did also.
          • Vcohorspraetoria@aol.com
            Then what about Von Steubens 1794 manual? Was that in use by the regular Army up to 1812? Did the entire Army make a change over to Smyth s in 1812, or was
            Message 5 of 10 , Jul 31, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Then what about Von Steubens 1794 manual? Was that in use by the regular
              Army up to 1812? Did the entire Army make a change over to Smyth's in 1812,
              or was there a transition period? Regimental commanders were notoriously
              stubborn when it came to making any changes.

              Phil Holmes
              6th USI


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • PEGGY MATHEWS
              My limited read on the situation is that there was no formal transition period, just the natural inertia you allude to plus the typical supply difficulties.
              Message 6 of 10 , Jul 31, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                My limited read on the situation is that there was no formal transition period, just the natural inertia you allude to plus the typical supply difficulties. It looks like von Steuben was in use pretty universally prior to 1812, but others are undoubtedly better equipped to answer the question. I don't know what "Mad Anthony" Wayne was using, or any other our other military expeditions. Interestingly, both Duane and Smyth apparently omitted any light infantry drill, which one would think is necessary when fighting natives.

                Michael Mathews
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Vcohorspraetoria@...
                Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 4:55 PM
                To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [WarOf1812] Smyth or Duane

                Then what about Von Steubens 1794 manual? Was that in use by the regular
                Army up to 1812? Did the entire Army make a change over to Smyth's in 1812,
                or was there a transition period? Regimental commanders were notoriously
                stubborn when it came to making any changes.

                Phil Holmes
                6th USI


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                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...

                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • dancingbobd@webtv.net
                Hi, My copy of Duane s, has on the title page: __________________________________ ADJUTANT GENERAL S OFFICE, Washington City, 19th March, 1813 General Orders,
                Message 7 of 10 , Aug 1, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi,

                  My copy of Duane's, has on the title page:

                  __________________________________
                  ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE,
                  Washington City, 19th March, 1813

                  General Orders,
                  The "Handbook of Infantry," compiled and published by William
                  Duane, of Philadelphia, will be received and observed as the system of
                  Infantry Discipline for the Army of the United States.
                  By order of the Secretary of War,
                  T. H. CUSHING, Adjt. Genl.
                  __________________________________

                  My reprint of Smythe's claims "by order of the Secretary of War", but
                  with no General Orders cite.

                  Duane updated his manual often and officers did not like having to buy
                  the new edition each year. Smythe was unofficial, but widely used.

                  Regards,

                  Bob Dorian
                  Back from travels
                • Steve Abolt
                  Dear List, As proved by this thread and indeed as having commanded different American companies at large events, each using their own interpretation of a
                  Message 8 of 10 , Aug 1, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear List,
                    As proved by this thread and indeed as having
                    commanded different American companies at large
                    events, each using their own interpretation of a
                    particular manual, attempting to discover a "proper"
                    American Manual for the time period is quite
                    difficult.

                    Though each edition of Smyth's and Duane's will tell
                    you that this is the "approved" version, the US Army,
                    began to realize the need for a new drill manual
                    before the beginning of the War. The old "Blue Book",
                    of Baron Von Stueben, in use since the Revolutionary
                    War Days, had become outmoded.

                    In 1810 several American Regiments, including the 7th
                    US Infantry, were ordered to be used to test the new
                    "French System"--basically the French Discipline of
                    1791. I have a copy of this order and the commands
                    which were to be used to implement the new evolutions.
                    It is quite interesting to compare these to the final
                    printed version of Smyth's.

                    As also has been noted, many old line American
                    officers were reluctant to change from the "Blue Book"
                    to the newer system. This was by no means limited to
                    the 1812 time period. When Winfield Scott revised his
                    system in 1835, many officers complained of the
                    change, most particularly in the light infantry
                    discipline.

                    In a living history vein, which is where I believe
                    this discussion originally started, which discipline
                    to use? In the 7th we use Smyth's System. This is
                    also true of our sister units of the 1st US, 6th US,
                    25th US, Missouri Rangers and Rifle Regiment. As we
                    in the 7th do later time periods, the 1830's-40's, the
                    French discipline, had of course, been adopted by the
                    US in 1816 with the edition of Scott's Tactics. We
                    found it easier to get new folks interested in the
                    1812 time period if they could relate to a drill which
                    they already knew. It was also easier to get folks
                    who do American Civil War to realize that the drill
                    they use was taken from somewhere else, and hence easy
                    to master in this earlier time period.

                    However, the problem still remains at large events as
                    to which drill to use? When I command it is Smyth's.
                    But as stated, not every American unit uses that. I
                    guess until we can all get together, then we will have
                    those same problems as plagued the American Army in
                    early 1812.

                    There was also a question as to castrmentation.
                    Smyth's contains a section on the layout of an
                    infantry camp. It is basically taken from Von Stueben
                    with a few modifications

                    All the best,
                    Steve Abolt

                    =====
                    Cottonbalers, By God!

                    visit our website at www.cottonbalers.lynchburg.net

                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
                    http://health.yahoo.com
                  • Vcohorspraetoria@aol.com
                    Then, this is indeed Living History ! We have different American units using different drill manuals that are appropriate for the period. Same thing now, as
                    Message 9 of 10 , Aug 1, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Then, this is indeed "Living History"!
                      We have different American units using different drill manuals that are
                      appropriate for the period. Same thing now, as then. Depending on the
                      various commanders.

                      Phil Holmes
                      6th Regt. of United States Infantry
                      Capt. Machesnay's Company


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Larry Lozon
                      From: Steve Abolt ~ the problem still remains at large events as to which drill to use? When I command it is Smyth s.
                      Message 10 of 10 , Aug 2, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        From: "Steve Abolt" <sacbg7@...>

                        ~ the problem still remains at large events as
                        to which drill to use? When I command it is Smyth's.
                        ...........................

                        Major Abolt et al

                        This problem was also realised within the Crown Forces Upper Canada.

                        Peter Twist has forwarded the 1811 version of the drill used by British
                        and Canadian Regiments in North America to all units and all now seem
                        to be using it. At events, a Battalion drill is usually held to bring all up
                        to
                        speed on this drill. The standardisation has also upgraded the Crown
                        Force's safety level.

                        The Brit/Canuck units also have organised their encampment (castrmentation)
                        into a correct "streeted" structure for wedge tents and a 'Militia" camp for
                        all
                        the other tent varieties. This worked well at Stoney Creek and Fort George.
                        it
                        gives the spectator a chance to experience the two styles of military
                        encampments.

                        Not an "Umbrella Group", but an agreed standardisation.


                        Larry Lozon
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.