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

GlennGary Light Infantry

Expand Messages
  • le_coq_fou
    I have read a bit about this regiment and was hoping to shed some light on a few points: 1. Did the GLI skirmish and fight more as Light Infantry in thier War
    Message 1 of 3 , Mar 11, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      I have read a bit about this regiment and was hoping to shed some
      light on a few points:

      1. Did the GLI skirmish and fight more as Light Infantry in thier War
      of 1812 action, or did they function more as a regular line unit?

      2. What are the major differences in their uniform (which i believe
      is the same as the 95th), and regular British Line besides the color?
      Are they the same cut, similar headgear?

      Thanks alot! Sorry if the questions are elementary, but I am pretty
      ignorant on this subject!

      Joshua
    • Craig Williams
      on 3/11/03 10:10 AM, le_coq_fou at le_coq_fou@yahoo.com wrote: I ll run the risk of starting a response to this... ... The Glengarry Light Infantry were
      Message 2 of 3 , Mar 11, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        on 3/11/03 10:10 AM, le_coq_fou at le_coq_fou@... wrote:

        I'll run the risk of starting a response to this...

        > I have read a bit about this regiment and was hoping to shed some
        > light on a few points:
        >
        > 1. Did the GLI skirmish and fight more as Light Infantry in thier War
        > of 1812 action, or did they function more as a regular line unit?

        The Glengarry Light Infantry were trained as light infantry and fought as
        such. This meant that, as well learning to function and fight as lights,
        they had to learn to be line infantry first. Therefore they could be called
        upon to serve like a battalion company, although instances of this actually
        occurring are hard to pinpoint.

        >
        > 2. What are the major differences in their uniform (which i believe
        > is the same as the 95th), and regular British Line besides the color?
        > Are they the same cut, similar headgear?


        This is a point of some...ahem...discussion.
        When the Regiment was first conceived it was requested by the Colonel to
        clothe the men in Highland dress to reflect the largely Scots origins of the
        settlers in the Glengarry/Stornmount region where they were mostly recruited
        from. The cost of this, of course, was beyond what the folks in England were
        willing to layout for a Fencible regiment, and so they were outfitted with a
        similar uniform to the 95th rifles.
        This is a move that "Whitehall" seems to fall back on repeatedly when faced
        with an unusual unit.

        As per the 95th;

        The tunic is of rifle green faced with black, the edges of the collar(cape)
        and cuffs to be "feathered" ( a flat piping) in white.
        The tunic had 42 buttons arranged as follows; three rows of white (pewter)
        buttons on the breast. Twelve buttons in each 2.5 in. apart at the bottom
        and widening to 7.5 at the top.
        The placement of the remaining buttons is just cause for some discussion.
        There is one on each shoulder-strap and one sat the top of each tail
        pleat/vent as the cartridge box could be buttoned to right one.
        This leaves one for each cuff which is borne out in much of the visual
        documentation of the day. (see C.H. Smith "British Riflemen, 1813").

        Most research on the trousers for the GLI indicate grey or "gun-mouth" grey.

        Shakos were of the light infantry cap style and were embellished with a
        green cord, a green tuft, black cockade with a button in the centre and a
        buglehorn device on the front. There is continued conjecture on the material
        of the buglehorn. Some believe it is pewter and others that it was brass.

        The accoutrements were standard to the service of a musket rather than a
        rifle but were in black leather with a brass breastplate of which there are
        two known designs.

        Canteens and haversacks were the property of the Board of Ordinance, were
        marked as such and are therefore not part of the regimental uniform.

        Boots, gaiters and stockings were issued and interestingly the greatcoat was
        given to the recruit as part of his enlistment, (if the recruiting broadside
        is to be believed!!).

        I can't put my hand on my original notes for this right now so I can't
        remember the actual status of neckstocks, but I believe they were issued as
        they were for the 95th. Whether the 95th continued to wear them is another
        topic for heated debate. I have yet to see an actual period reference to the
        discontinued use of the stock by individual units.
        (If you have one PLEASE forward it!).

        As indicated before, the GLI were armed with muskets, most likely India
        pattern.

        I hope this helps you, but I fear it may have opened the "Box"!

        Tuppence
        Craig Williams

        >
        > Thanks alot!
        >
        > Joshua
      • Craig Williams
        An addendum to my previous posting... ... The cut of which is that of the regular infantry except that it is not fully lined in the body, (just panels in the
        Message 3 of 3 , Mar 11, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          An addendum to my previous posting...

          > As per the 95th;
          >
          > The tunic is of rifle green faced with black,

          The cut of which is that of the regular infantry except that it is not fully
          lined in the body, (just panels in the same green behind the buttons), and
          the sleeved were to be lined. There is no mention of turnbacks.


          > Boots, gaiters and stockings were issued and interestingly the greatcoat was
          > given to the recruit as part of his enlistment, (if the recruiting broadside
          > is to be believed!!).


          The Greatcoat was ,in the regular army, issued as required by the regiment
          and was property of the same, not the individual.

          > I hope this helps you, but I fear it may have opened the "Box"!

          Now ducking into my trench...


          > Tuppence
          > Craig Williams
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.