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

A Question for the list - Fuzil - Fusil and the British Army in 1812

Expand Messages
  • Tom Fournier
    Good morning! In reviewing a return of the arms and accoutrements of the 41st that was dated 15th December 1814, I came across an interesting notation: N.B.
    Message 1 of 11 , Nov 25, 2005
      Good morning!

      In reviewing a return of the arms and accoutrements of the 41st that
      was dated 15th December 1814, I came across an interesting notation:

      "N.B. Twenty nine fuzil, included in the above - serviceable"

      We have been kicking this around and come up with the following:

      In the early 18th century, the term fusil, flintlock and musket were
      all used interchangedly to mean the same weapon.

      By our time period, a fusil seems to have been a lighter, smaller
      bore weapon, considered popular with officers for sport shooting, or
      perhaps their fowling piece. Another scenario, could be a shorter
      lighter weapon used by NCOs.

      I find it interesting to see these in an official return of
      weapons. The 41st were awfully knocked around with numerous
      casualties and/or prisoners at Fort Stephenson, the Battle of Lake
      Erie, the retreat up the Thames, the Battle of Moraviantown and the
      bastion explosion at the attack on Fort Erie. Could they have
      pressed any flintlock they could get to try to arm their soldiers?

      If any has an insights as to why the 29 Fuzil would be specified on
      the return, it would be appreciated!

      Your most humble and obedient servant,

      Tom Fournier
      41st Regiment
    • Craig Williams
      Tom, Just a question for clarification. You note, N.B. Twenty nine fuzil, included in the above - serviceable . It s hard to assess this out of context. What
      Message 2 of 11 , Nov 25, 2005
        Tom,

        Just a question for clarification.

        You note, "N.B. Twenty nine fuzil, included in the above -
        serviceable".
        It's hard to assess this out of context.
        What else in the way of firearms are listed?
        You are correct in that the Fusil is a smaller lighter musket. In
        fact the originals I've seen have the aspect of being a 5/6 size
        version of a full size service musket.

        Craig



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Tom Fournier
        Hi Craig The return was titled, Return of Arms and Accoutrements in Possession and Wanting to Complete the 41st Regiment --- Three Rivers, 15th December 1814
        Message 3 of 11 , Nov 25, 2005
          Hi Craig

          The return was titled, "Return of Arms and Accoutrements in
          Possession and Wanting to Complete the 41st Regiment --- Three
          Rivers, 15th December 1814"

          There was a chart of arms with columns for Flintlocks, Bayonets,
          Scabbards, Pouches, Pouch Belts, Bayonet Belts, Slings and Belt
          Plates.

          The rows read: Serviceable, Unserviceable, Repairable, Wanting to
          Complete, Total.

          For example, for the flintlocks, the return read:

          Serviceable: 410

          Unserviceable: 142

          Repairable: 52

          Wanting to Complete: 438

          Total: 900

          When I do the math, the total should read: 1042, so it seems if you
          back out the 142 unserviceable, you get the 900.

          I am not sure on the "wanting to complete" but this is most likely
          what is missing through their various losses and captures.

          Of the 410 serviceable muskets, 29 are the fuzil.

          Thanks!

          Tom


          --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, Craig Williams <sgtwarner@s...>
          wrote:
          >
          > Tom,
          >
          > Just a question for clarification.
          >
          > You note, "N.B. Twenty nine fuzil, included in the above -
          > serviceable".
          > It's hard to assess this out of context.
          > What else in the way of firearms are listed?
          > You are correct in that the Fusil is a smaller lighter musket. In
          > fact the originals I've seen have the aspect of being a 5/6 size
          > version of a full size service musket.
          >
          > Craig
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • Len Heidebrecht
          Hello there, It is quite possible that these were weapons used by officers (if not privately purchased)or sergeants. Another possibility is that the stores
          Message 4 of 11 , Nov 25, 2005
            Hello there,
            It is quite possible that these were weapons used by officers (if
            not privately purchased)or sergeants. Another possibility is that
            the stores people didn't know what on earth these weird old smaller
            bore muskets were that they had there and just lumped them all under
            the term 'fusil.'
            Does this term show up in other returns for the unit?
            Cheers,
            Len

            --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Fournier"
            <tom4141fournier@y...> wrote:
            >
            > Hi Craig
            >
            > The return was titled, "Return of Arms and Accoutrements in
            > Possession and Wanting to Complete the 41st Regiment --- Three
            > Rivers, 15th December 1814"
            >
            > There was a chart of arms with columns for Flintlocks, Bayonets,
            > Scabbards, Pouches, Pouch Belts, Bayonet Belts, Slings and Belt
            > Plates.
            >
            > The rows read: Serviceable, Unserviceable, Repairable, Wanting to
            > Complete, Total.
            >
            > For example, for the flintlocks, the return read:
            >
            > Serviceable: 410
            >
            > Unserviceable: 142
            >
            > Repairable: 52
            >
            > Wanting to Complete: 438
            >
            > Total: 900
            >
            > When I do the math, the total should read: 1042, so it seems if
            you
            > back out the 142 unserviceable, you get the 900.
            >
            > I am not sure on the "wanting to complete" but this is most likely
            > what is missing through their various losses and captures.
            >
            > Of the 410 serviceable muskets, 29 are the fuzil.
            >
            > Thanks!
            >
            > Tom
            >
            >
            > --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, Craig Williams <sgtwarner@s...>
            > wrote:
            > >
            > > Tom,
            > >
            > > Just a question for clarification.
            > >
            > > You note, "N.B. Twenty nine fuzil, included in the above -
            > > serviceable".
            > > It's hard to assess this out of context.
            > > What else in the way of firearms are listed?
            > > You are correct in that the Fusil is a smaller lighter musket.
            In
            > > fact the originals I've seen have the aspect of being a 5/6
            size
            > > version of a full size service musket.
            > >
            > > Craig
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            >
          • Craig Williams
            I had a chance to look at the information Tom sent me and there really aren t any clues there. The fusil was a weapon normally associated with the Rev War
            Message 5 of 11 , Nov 25, 2005
              I had a chance to look at the information Tom sent me and there
              really aren't any clues there.
              The "fusil" was a weapon normally associated with the Rev War British
              army and used by company officers in the flank companies,
              particularly the lights. The 41st had been in Canada since 1799 so
              it could be that they were still carrying them when they arrived.
              I wouldn't be at all surprised if they are weapons to be used by the
              Company Officers and perhaps sergeants of the flankers as suggested
              by Len.

              (Len, I'm not sure what you're inferring when you say "if not
              purchased"?)

              Craig
            • abateman
              ... From: Tom Fournier ... Or they could be muskets that the regiment never had at all. It seems, from looking at the returns, that the 41st was technically
              Message 6 of 11 , Nov 25, 2005
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Tom Fournier"
                >
                > I am not sure on the "wanting to complete" but this is most likely
                > what is missing through their various losses and captures.

                Or they could be muskets that the regiment never had at all. It seems, from
                looking at the returns, that the 41st was technically entitled to have 900
                muskets, 900 bayonets, 900 pouches, etc. in its stores, but if the
                government couldn't issue that many to the regiment due to shortages, the
                missing ones would be listed in the regiment's bookkeeping as "wanting to
                complete". (i.e., "Hey Board of Ordnance - you still owe us 438 muskets
                here.")

                Andrew Bateman, 41st Foot
              • BritcomHMP@aol.com
                In the early 18th century, the term fusil, flintlock and musket were all used interchangedly to mean the same weapon. Actualy no, it was in the early 18th
                Message 7 of 11 , Nov 25, 2005
                  In the early 18th century, the term fusil, flintlock and musket were
                  all used interchangedly to mean the same weapon.


                  Actualy no, it was in the early 18th century that te terms were NOT interchangeable, a fusil was distinct from a doglock but both were flintlocks. The early fusils were thought to throw fewer sparks and so were initial used bu those guarding artillery or in close proxsmity to powder.


                  By our time period, a fusil seems to have been a lighter, smaller
                  bore weapon, considered popular with officers for sport shooting, or
                  perhaps their fowling piece. Another scenario, could be a shorter
                  lighter weapon used by NCOs.


                  Basicaly they were what he army said they were at the time and under those circumstances all of the the above statements were true at various times.

                  Cheers

                  Tim


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • HQ93rd@aol.com
                  ... A bit off tangent, but General Tim will recall, a few years ago an outrageous discussion began on an 1812 message board regarding the Battle of New Orleans
                  Message 8 of 11 , Nov 27, 2005
                    In a message dated 25/11/2005 4:07:46 AM, tom4141fournier@... writes:
                    > In the early 18th century, the term fusil, flintlock and musket were
                    > all used interchangedly to mean the same weapon.
                    >

                    A bit off tangent, but General Tim will recall, a few years ago an outrageous
                    discussion began on an 1812 message board regarding the Battle of New Orleans
                    involving a complete prat whose entire argument came from movies, schoolboy
                    books, and cloud cuckoo land.
                    In the midst of this idiocy, the dolt at one time informed us all of the
                    "fusilage" made by the American "riflemen", and like a dog with an old rag would
                    not let go. Ever.
                    Even when it was pointed a "fusilage" (sic) is part of an airplane, or
                    otherwise not a word at all. (see: fuselage, fusillade, etc.)

                    "Lord, what fools these mortals be..." -- Shakespeare.

                    B
                    93rd SHRoFLHU
                    THE Thin Red Line
                    93rdhighlanders.com


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • PEGGY MATHEWS
                    Though there is a fusillade. Probably just a confusion of terms and clearly derived from the term fusil. From the Princeton Dictionary website: Noun a..
                    Message 9 of 11 , Nov 28, 2005
                      Though there is a "fusillade." Probably just a confusion of terms and clearly<?> derived from the term fusil. From the Princeton Dictionary website:
                      Noun
                      a.. S:<http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o6=&o1=1&o5=&o4=&o3=&s=fusillade&i=0&h=00#c> (n) <>fusillade<http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o6=&o1=1&o5=&o4=&o3=&s=fusillade>, salvo<http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o6=&o1=1&o5=&o4=&o3=&s=salvo>, volley<http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o6=&o1=1&o5=&o4=&o3=&s=volley>, burst<http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o6=&o1=1&o5=&o4=&o3=&s=burst> (rapid simultaneous discharge of firearms) "our fusillade from the left flank caught them by surprise"
                      Verb
                      a.. S:<http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o6=&o1=1&o5=&o4=&o3=&s=fusillade&i=1&h=00#c> (v) <>fusillade<http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o6=&o1=1&o5=&o4=&o3=&s=fusillade> (attack with fusillade)
                      Michael


                      "We must sail sometimes with the wind and sometimes against it --
                      but we must sail, and not drift, nor lie at anchor." -- Oliver
                      Wendell Holmes
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: HQ93rd@...<mailto:HQ93rd@...>
                      To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com<mailto:WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 1:13 AM
                      Subject: Re: [WarOf1812] A Question for the list - Fuzil - Fusil and the British Army in 1812


                      In a message dated 25/11/2005 4:07:46 AM, tom4141fournier@...<mailto:tom4141fournier@...> writes:
                      > In the early 18th century, the term fusil, flintlock and musket were
                      > all used interchangedly to mean the same weapon.
                      >

                      A bit off tangent, but General Tim will recall, a few years ago an outrageous
                      discussion began on an 1812 message board regarding the Battle of New Orleans
                      involving a complete prat whose entire argument came from movies, schoolboy
                      books, and cloud cuckoo land.
                      In the midst of this idiocy, the dolt at one time informed us all of the
                      "fusilage" made by the American "riflemen", and like a dog with an old rag would
                      not let go. Ever.
                      Even when it was pointed a "fusilage" (sic) is part of an airplane, or
                      otherwise not a word at all. (see: fuselage, fusillade, etc.)

                      "Lord, what fools these mortals be..." -- Shakespeare.

                      B
                      93rd SHRoFLHU
                      THE Thin Red Line
                      93rdhighlanders.com




                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • PEGGY MATHEWS
                      Well, amidst all the clutter that doesn t seem to work, is a definition. Cleaned up below for your edification. Michael ... From: PEGGY
                      Message 10 of 11 , Nov 28, 2005
                        Well, amidst all the clutter that doesn't seem to work, is a definition. Cleaned up below for your edification.

                        Michael

                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: PEGGY MATHEWS<mailto:ciefranche21e@...>
                        To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com<mailto:WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 8:20 AM
                        Subject: Re: [WarOf1812] A Question for the list - Fuzil - Fusil and the British Army in 1812


                        Though there is a "fusillade." Probably just a confusion of terms and clearly<?> derived from the term fusil. From the Princeton Dictionary website:

                        Noun
                        a.. S (n) fusillade, salvo, volley, burst (rapid simultaneous discharge of firearms) "our fusillade from the left flank caught them by surprise"
                        Verb
                        a.. S: (v) fusillade (attack with fusillade)

                        Michael

                        (snip)

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • HQ93rd@aol.com
                        Oh, to be sure. We pointed out this (the word fusillade) as well, but noooooo...the idiot would never let go of his made-up word, fusilage . Ah, what grand
                        Message 11 of 11 , Nov 30, 2005
                          Oh, to be sure. We pointed out this (the word fusillade) as well, but
                          noooooo...the idiot would never let go of his made-up word, "fusilage".
                          Ah, what grand times we've had.....

                          In a message dated 28/11/2005 6:46:32 AM, ciefranche21e@... writes:
                          > ----- Original Message -----
                          >   From: PEGGY MATHEWS<mailto:ciefranche21e@...>
                          >   To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com<mailto:WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com>
                          >   Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 8:20 AM
                          >   Subject: Re: [WarOf1812] A Question for the list - Fuzil - Fusil and the
                          > British Army in 1812
                          >
                          >   Though there is a "fusillade."  Probably just a confusion of terms and
                          > clearly<?> derived from the term fusil.  From the Princeton Dictionary website:
                          >
                          >   Noun
                          >     a.. S (n) fusillade, salvo, volley, burst (rapid simultaneous discharge
                          > of firearms) "our fusillade from the left flank caught them by surprise"
                          >   Verb
                          >     a.. S: (v) fusillade (attack with fusillade)
                          >

                          HQ93rd wrote:
                          >> A bit off tangent, but General Tim will recall, a few years ago an
                          outrageous discussion began on an 1812 message board regarding the Battle of New
                          Orleans involving a complete prat whose entire argument came from movies,
                          schoolboy books, and cloud cuckoo land.
                          In the midst of this idiocy, the dolt at one time informed us all of the
                          "fusilage" made by the American "riflemen", and like a dog with an old rag would
                          not let go. Ever.
                          Even when it was pointed a "fusilage" (sic) is part of an airplane, or
                          otherwise not a word at all. (see: fuselage, fusillade, etc.)

                          "Lord, what fools these mortals be..." -- Shakespeare.
                          <<



                          93rd SHRoFLHU
                          THE Thin Red Line
                          93rdhighlanders.com


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.