Re: [WarOf1812] GlennGary Light Infantry
- 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 someThe Glengarry Light Infantry were trained as light infantry and fought as
> 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?
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.
>This is a point of some...ahem...discussion.
> 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?
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
I hope this helps you, but I fear it may have opened the "Box"!
> Thanks alot!
- An addendum to my previous posting...
> As per the 95th;The cut of which is that of the regular infantry except that it is not fully
> The tunic is of rifle green faced with black,
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 wasThe Greatcoat was ,in the regular army, issued as required by the regiment
> given to the recruit as part of his enlistment, (if the recruiting broadside
> is to be believed!!).
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...
> Craig Williams