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

Re: [WarOf1812] Re: Corporals as NCO's

Expand Messages
  • ray hobbs
    Which raises another topic. Several regiments in the hobby (including ours, the 41st) have men wearing one chevron as Lance Corporals . In my reading of many,
    Message 1 of 17 , Feb 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Which raises another topic. Several regiments in the hobby (including
      ours, the 41st) have men wearing one chevron as "Lance Corporals". In
      my reading of many, many primary documents I have never come across
      this rank for the 1812 period. It is absent from the muster rolls I
      have read. I believe it was introduced later in the 19th century.
      Since the 1779 document cited below does not mention "Lance Corporal",
      does anyone know when this rank was introduced? The questions is
      begged, of course, are we correct in maintaining this rank among our
      soldiers for 1812?
      Should the ranking be Private, Corporal and Sergeant, rather than
      Private, Lance-Corporal, Corporal, Sergeant?
      The "Chosen Man" of the Rifle Regiments does not seem to have been
      duplicated in the regular regiments.
      Ray Hobbs
      41st Regt.


      On Thursday, February 2, 2006, at 10:19 AM, Chris McKay wrote:

      > Larry et al,
      > The document which I quoted was the Rules and Regulations for the
      > Manual and Platoon Exercises, Formations, and Movements of His
      > Majesty's Forces (1811).  The quotations were taken from the pages
      > iii to vi. 
      > More importantly, the resolution to our debate comes from Smith's
      > Universal Military Dictionary (1779) via Doug Decroix.  He quotes
      > Smith as stating, "Non-commissioned officers are sergeant-majors,
      > quarter-master-sergeants, sergeants, corporals, drum and fife-
      > majors, who are nominated by their respective captains, and
      > appointed by the commanding officers of regiments, and by them
      > reduced without a court-martial."  So, mystery solved, I was wrong. 
      > Now on to the next debate, perhaps which we can discuss at Fort York
      > in April.
      >
      > Chris
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "lalozon" <lalozon@...> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > Original Message -----
      > > From: "Chris McKay" <PrivateCannon@...>
      > >
      > > "... in the 1812 British army, are corporals considered NCO's?..."
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > ----- Original Message -----
      > > From: "Peter Twist" <ptwist@...>
      > >
      > >  Good question.
      > >
      > > The sergeants definitely had a special status, but corporals were
      > accorded a
      > > higher status than the rest of the rank and file.  I've never seen
      > a
      > > document outlining who were considered non-commissioned officers.
      > >
      > > Whatever the outcome of the debate, any soldier above the rank of
      > private
      > > having responsibility in his unit is welcome at the [Crown Forces]
      > School.
      > >
      > > Sat Apr. 22 Infantry Officer & NCO School of Instruction - Fort
      > York,
      > > Toronto, ON
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > NOTE: Peter Twist is not a subscriber of this WarOf1812 Yahoo Group
      > >
      > >
      > > Yrs.,
      > >  L2
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > 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...
      >
      > Unit Contact information for North America:
      >    ---------------------------------
      > Crown Forces Unit Listing:
      > http://1812crownforces.tripod.com
      >
      > American Forces Unit Listing
      > http://usforces1812.tripod.com
      >
      >
      <image.tiff>
      >
      > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
      >
      > +  Visit your group "WarOf1812" on the web.
      >  
      > +  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      >  WarOf1812-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >  
      > +  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      >
      >
      <image.tiff>
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • lalozon
      From: Chris McKay Larry et al, The document which I quoted was the Rules and Regulations for the Manual and Platoon Exercises,
      Message 2 of 17 , Feb 2, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        From: "Chris McKay" <PrivateCannon@...>


        Larry et al,

        The document which I quoted was the Rules and Regulations for the
        Manual and Platoon Exercises, Formations, and Movements of His
        Majesty's Forces (1811) ... Smith's Universal Military Dictionary
        (1779) via Doug Decroix.
        He quotes ... "Non-commissioned officers are sergeant-majors,
        quarter-master-sergeants, sergeants, corporals, drum and fife-
        majors, who are nominated by their respective captains, and
        appointed by the commanding officers of regiments ..."




        Thank you Chris



        Mr. DeCroix is very well learned in our time period and is well respected.

        I am sure now that he is a member of this WarOf1812 Yahoo Group a number of
        our questions will be answered.

        As well, now that Mr. DeCroix is a Staff Officer in the Crown Forces North
        America his expertise will be an asset to our hobby


        As Mr. Twist has said and your research per Smith's Universal Military
        Dictionary has reinforced


        Sergeant Majors,
        Quarter Master Sergeants,
        Sergeants,
        Corporals

        and of course, Officers,

        are welcome to attend

        Sat Apr. 22 Crown Forces Infantry Officer & NCO School of Instruction

        Their responsibility is to learn all that is taught that day and return to
        their Units and relay that knowledge to their troops and those troops to be
        efficient in the drill for the upcoming campaign season which seems to start
        in the Great Lakes area with the Battle of Longwoods near London, Ontario,
        Canada May 6-7 which is only approximately eleven weeks away ...



        Yrs.,

        L2
      • Craig Williams
        This is a good point Ray, Back in the day, this was a hot topic of discussion at Ft. York and after some investigation there was reference found that the rank
        Message 3 of 17 , Feb 2, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          This is a good point Ray,

          Back in the day, this was a hot topic of discussion at Ft. York and
          after some investigation there was reference found that the rank
          "lance corporal" was introduced at the same time as the earliest
          advent of chevron use in the British army (1802). The lance corporal
          did exist at that time but they were called chosen man, they were
          paid slightly more than a private, they were an appointed rank and
          they didn't wear the single chevron until later than the Napoleonic
          wars.
          So the single chevron is probably an anachronism. I am no near my
          library right now but I believe this information is in one or other
          of the histories of the british army .

          Craig
          On 2-Feb-06, at 10:40 AM, ray hobbs wrote:

          > Which raises another topic. Several regiments in the hobby (including
          > ours, the 41st) have men wearing one chevron as "Lance Corporals". In
          > my reading of many, many primary documents I have never come across
          > this rank for the 1812 period. It is absent from the muster rolls I
          > have read.
          >
        • Chris McKay
          Interesting Craig, but (not trying to be impudent) I m afraid you raise as many questions as you answer. In looking through the paylists for the Royals for
          Message 4 of 17 , Feb 2, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Interesting Craig, but (not trying to be impudent) I'm afraid you
            raise as many questions as you answer. In looking through the
            paylists for the Royals for 1814, there is no mention of any Chosen
            Man pay anywhere. This isn't all that conclusive because there
            isn't a section for Colour Sergeants either. Rather, some Sergeants
            simply earn more pay than others. So, checking with the privates,
            there are many cases where some of them are to receive seven or
            eight pence a day from the standard six. All of these cases seem to
            be for seven and fourteen years (or more) service respectively.
            Would these men be considered Chosen Men simply because of their
            years of service? Or was it possible that this rank was simply not
            used in the Royals? You didn't mention a requisite strength of
            Chosen Men, so perhaps the battalion simply didn't see anyone as
            worthy or didn't see it as a position worth filling.
            I was also trying to find some mention of their duties in some of
            the documents I have because, if they existed, this is the next
            logical step. In Cooper's Light Infantry manual, he refers only to
            Sergeants, Corporals or other "Intelligent Men." I suppose these
            would be the Chosen men, but it seems odd that he would not refer to
            them by this name. Is it possible, since there's no uniform
            distinction, that Chosen Man is not, technically, a rank, but rather
            simply indicates a man chosen to be next in line. This would not,
            however, come with a pay raise.
            I've probably asked more questions about this than there are
            answers for, but I'd love to read more about this rank, so if you
            can find where you read about it, please pass it on.

            Thanks,
            Chris

            --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, Craig Williams <sgtwarner@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > This is a good point Ray,
            >
            > Back in the day, this was a hot topic of discussion at Ft. York
            and
            > after some investigation there was reference found that the rank
            > "lance corporal" was introduced at the same time as the earliest
            > advent of chevron use in the British army (1802). The lance
            corporal
            > did exist at that time but they were called chosen man, they were
            > paid slightly more than a private, they were an appointed rank
            and
            > they didn't wear the single chevron until later than the
            Napoleonic
            > wars.
            > So the single chevron is probably an anachronism. I am no near my
            > library right now but I believe this information is in one or
            other
            > of the histories of the british army .
            >
            > Craig
            > On 2-Feb-06, at 10:40 AM, ray hobbs wrote:
            >
            > > Which raises another topic. Several regiments in the hobby
            (including
            > > ours, the 41st) have men wearing one chevron as "Lance
            Corporals". In
            > > my reading of many, many primary documents I have never come
            across
            > > this rank for the 1812 period. It is absent from the muster
            rolls I
            > > have read.
            > >
            >
          • lalozon
            From: Chris McKay To: Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:45 PM Subject: [WarOf1812] Re: ... In
            Message 5 of 17 , Feb 2, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              From: "Chris McKay" <PrivateCannon@...>
              To: <WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:45 PM
              Subject: [WarOf1812] Re:

              "... In looking through the paylists for the Royals for 1814..."



              Chris

              Was there any mention of 'Lance Corporals' in the paylists for the
              1st (Royal Scots) Regt?

              I assume that you mean the 1st Regt when you say 'Royals'

              Yrs.,
              L2
            • Chris McKay
              Sorry, yes, the First (Royal Scots) Regiment of Foot paylists were the ones to which I was refering. There are only the following ranks: Serjeant-Major;
              Message 6 of 17 , Feb 2, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Sorry, yes, the First (Royal Scots) Regiment of Foot paylists were
                the ones to which I was refering. There are only the following
                ranks: Serjeant-Major; Quarter-Master Serjeant; Pay-Masters Clerk;
                Armourer as Serjeant; Drum-Major as Serjeant; Serjeants; Corporals;
                Drummers and Fifers; and Privates.

                Chris

                --- In WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com, "lalozon" <lalozon@...> wrote:
                >
                > From: "Chris McKay" <PrivateCannon@...>
                > To: <WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com>
                > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:45 PM
                > Subject: [WarOf1812] Re:
                >
                > "... In looking through the paylists for the Royals for 1814..."
                >
                >
                >
                > Chris
                >
                > Was there any mention of 'Lance Corporals' in the paylists
                for the
                > 1st (Royal Scots) Regt?
                >
                > I assume that you mean the 1st Regt when you say 'Royals'
                >
                > Yrs.,
                > L2
                >
              • lalozon
                From: Chris McKay ... the First (Royal Scots) Regiment of Foot paylists ... Thus no mention of Lance Corporals, which
                Message 7 of 17 , Feb 2, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  From: "Chris McKay" <PrivateCannon@...>

                  "... the First (Royal Scots) Regiment of Foot paylists ..."



                  Thus no mention of Lance Corporals,
                  which reinforces Doctor Hobbs
                  and my research so far

                  Thank you

                  L2
                • Kevin Windsor
                  Don t worry Mark, I will copy this, blow it up really BIG and give it to you!!! (oh wait Chris is married, so he is used to being wrong now!!) KW
                  Message 8 of 17 , Feb 2, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Don't worry Mark, I will copy this, blow it up really BIG and give it to
                    you!!!
                    (oh wait Chris is married, so he is used to being wrong now!!)

                    KW

                    ----- Original Message -----

                    > So, mystery solved, I was wrong.
                    > Chris
                  • Richard Feltoe
                    Dear listoids In combing through yet more obsure out of period and irrelevant documents as two or three people have chosen to characterise my work as a
                    Message 9 of 17 , Apr 12, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear listoids
                      In combing through yet more "obsure" "out of period" and "irrelevant" documents as two or three people have chosen to characterise my work as a professional museum curator; I have come across something which they are certain to dismiss once again. On the other hand, for those who are willing to accept the following terms of relevance, it may prove of interest.
                      regards
                      Richard Feltoe


                      The document is entitled
                      "The Standing Orders for the Norwich or Hundred and Sixth Regiment"
                      and was published in 1795
                      (for those not familiar with this regiment it was officially formed in April 1794 and was disbanded in 1795).
                      If we accept that since it was a new regiment, starting from scratch, it had no prior regimental traditions or oral proceedures learned by generations of ready-made NCO's to fall back on. Instead, recruiting and establishing itself from a range of sources, this publication was created; outlining every aspect of the duties and functions of the several ranks, as well as the regulations to be applied in the running of the regiment.
                      These statements and regulations could not have been simlpy made up as unique regimental preferences, instead they would have had to follow the letter of the overall army regulations and be compatable with those of the other regiments of the line. As such, I have to conject that this gives us a pretty good snapshot of what was the regimental standard of the day, and since this is only seventeen years prior to the outbreak of our war, and the British Army was not renouned for changing established rules and proceedures at a breakneck pace, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that a similar policy could have been in effect in 1812 as to the effective position as an NCO in the British Army. At least that's the way I see it.

                      "...NON COMMISSIONED OFFICERS
                      Non Commissioned Officers are to be thoroughly informed of the standing Orders of the Regiment, and to attend strictly to every circumstance of conduct and behavior of the private men, and to make it their business to find out every thing irregular. They are to see that the Arms, Accoutrements, and Necessaries are properly taken care of; that the men are cleanly and perfectly exact in every duty of the Regiment. They must insist on a most strict compliance with their orders; and as their authority must be supported, they must use it with discretion,not to gratify any personal resentment. On the contrary, they must behave well to the men, still avoiding too much familiarity: they must consider the respectable situation in which they are placed. They must positively exert their authority, and they must set the Privates a proper example by a manly, soldier-like, obedient conduct on their part, and a great decency of appearance. Any non-commissioned Officer who connives at or overlooks any irregular and unsoldier-like behavior of any kind, or who does not himself set a good example, will certainly be reduced as one who has not the good of the service at heart, and does not feel for his situation.

                      Non-commissioned Officers running in debt will be reduced, as unfit to preserve authority or keep up good order amongst the men. No non-commissioned Officer is to have any money transactions whatever with a Private. Every non-commissioned Officer is to keep up that degree of respect which is due to him from the men; whoever is deficient in that particular must be reduced, as wanting that Propriety of conduct and behavior which will always procure respect, and which alone can procure it. No non-commissioned Officer must ever suffer himself to to be treated by the private men, or ever drink with them on any account; either from a notion of gratitude the non-commissioned Officer will think himself bound to be partial to the men that treat and drink with him, or the men will flatter themselves they are entitled to some indulgence: whenever this rule is not observed the Serjeant or Corporal will be immediately reduced to the Ranks as totaly unfit to support any authority as non-commissioned Officers..."

                      (Of course it's just conjecture on my part, but I think this could be hinting that Corporals is NCO's, but just in case there are those who still don't accept this, it continues)

                      "...When a non-commissioned Officer has the charge of a squad he is entirely responsible for it; besides the common visitation he muse frequently look into and discover if the men are regular and obedient to orders, and he should take a pride in having it in perfect order. A non-commissioned Officer may be certain that, by overlooking the irregularities of the men, he not only incurs the censure of the Officers, but also the contempt of the men themselves. If a non-commissioned Officer is taken ill, he must report it to the Serjeant of his squad...

                      (Let's look at this here, the sick NCO is to report to the Sergeant, It's therefore not the sergeant and can't be the privates, so who's left? old two stripe!)

                      ...or if he commands a squad, to the Sergeant Major...

                      (i.e. the sergeant or the corporal where there is no sergeant)

                      ...Non-commissioned Officers must be extremely well dressed at all times, and have an air that distinguishes them. The Serjeants and Corporals must have small pocket brushes when they parade their squads to clean any dirt or dust on the men's hats and coats - the same at turning out a relief when on guard. ...
                      A Serjeant has authority to confine a Corporal and both Serjeants and Corporals have authority to confine privates, which, of course, they must do with discretion...

                      ...Non-commissioned Officers are to be promoted according to seniority if they merit it; but if the eldest of a rank is not fit for promotion the next who is must be taken, for no man will be promoted who is not really fit for the service; and Lance Corporals, if found equal to the appointment, will be promoted the same as full Corporals, and in every respect be obeyed and considered as such..."

                      (Here's one that surprised me, official reference to Lance Corporals, New discussion please!)


                      In addition to this material, this document outlines details for Officers, Regimental Staff, the Sergeant Major, Dummers, Regimental tailors and Recruits etc. It also covers numerous aspects of regimental life, including marriage!

                      If anyone is interested, I'd be willing to put up some more exerpts from this little gem.
                      Richard Feltoe

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • dancingbobd@webtv.net
                      Richard, Great stuff. A good guide for behaviour in public times at events. Please do post more. I would be interested in the Staff Officer section and the
                      Message 10 of 17 , Apr 12, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Richard,

                        Great stuff. A good guide for behaviour in public times at events.

                        Please do post more. I would be interested in the Staff Officer section
                        and the Company tailor section as well.

                        THANKS!!

                        Regards,

                        Bob Dorian
                        Surgeon 14 LD
                        US Engineer
                        Sometimes sewing guy - not a tailor, that would be Maj. Abolt! ; * )
                      • awash
                        Dear Richard, Concerning Corporals as NCOs, I believe that I can support your statement. The USMC (or at the time the Continental Marines) based their ranks on
                        Message 11 of 17 , Apr 13, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear Richard,
                          Concerning Corporals as NCOs, I believe that I can support your statement. The USMC (or at the time the Continental Marines) based their ranks on the system used by the English.
                          Corporals of Marines are now and always have been NCOs. Supporting documentation for this I found in the Marine NCO handbook which covers topics like history of the Corps, its ranks, customs and courtesies, etc.
                          From this same tomb I read that the rank of Lance Corporal came from the French, it meant an old campaigner or one that has broken many lances in battle.
                          Respectfully
                          Andy Wash
                          Sergeant of Marines


                          ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
                          From: "Richard Feltoe" <feltoe@...>
                          Reply-To: WarOf1812@yahoogroups.com
                          Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 01:01:45 -0400

                          ><html><body>
                          >
                          ><tt>
                          >Dear listoids<BR>
                          >In combing through yet more "obsure" "out of period" and "irrelevant" documents as two or three people have chosen to characterise my work as a professional museum curator; I have come across something which they are certain to dismiss once again. On the other hand, for those who are willing to accept the following terms of relevance, it may prove of interest.<BR>
                          >regards<BR>
                          >Richard Feltoe<BR>
                          ><BR>
                          ><BR>
                          >The document is entitled<BR>
                          >"The Standing Orders for the Norwich or Hundred and Sixth Regiment" <BR>
                          >and was published in 1795<BR>
                          >(for those not familiar with this regiment it was officially formed in April 1794 and was disbanded in 1795).  <BR>
                          >If we accept that since it was a new regiment, starting from scratch, it had no prior regimental traditions or oral proceedures learned by generations of ready-made NCO's to fall back on. Instead, recruiting and establishing itself from a range of sources, this publication was created; outlining every aspect of the duties and functions of the several ranks, as well as the regulations to be applied in the running of the regiment. <BR>
                          >These statements and regulations could not have been simlpy made up as unique regimental preferences, instead they would have had to follow the letter of the overall army regulations and be compatable with those of the other regiments of the line. As such, I have to conject that this gives us a pretty good snapshot of what was the regimental standard of the day, and since this is only seventeen years prior to the outbreak of our war, and the British Army was not renouned for changing established rules and proceedures at a breakneck pace, I believe it is reasonable to conclude that a similar policy could have been in effect in 1812 as to the effective position as an NCO in the British Army. At least that's the way I see it.<BR>
                          ><BR>
                          >"...NON COMMISSIONED OFFICERS<BR>
                          >Non Commissioned Officers are to be thoroughly informed of the standing Orders of the Regiment, and to attend strictly to every circumstance of conduct and behavior of the private men, and to make it their business to find out every thing irregular. They are to see that the Arms, Accoutrements, and Necessaries are properly taken care of; that the men are cleanly and perfectly exact in every duty of the Regiment. They must insist on a most strict compliance with their orders; and as their authority must be supported, they must use it with discretion,not to gratify any personal resentment. On the contrary, they must behave well to the men, still avoiding too much familiarity: they must consider the respectable situation in which they are placed. They must positively exert their authority, and they must set the Privates a proper example by a manly, soldier-like, obedient conduct on their part, and a great decency of appearance. Any non-commissioned Officer who connives at or overlooks any irregular and unsoldier-like behavior of any kind, or who does not himself set a good example, will certainly be reduced as one who has not the good of the service at heart, and does not feel for his situation.<BR>
                          ><BR>
                          >Non-commissioned Officers running in debt will be reduced, as unfit to preserve authority or keep up good order amongst the men. No non-commissioned Officer is to have any money transactions whatever with a Private. Every non-commissioned Officer is to keep up that degree of respect which is due to him from the men; whoever is deficient in that particular must be reduced, as wanting that Propriety of conduct and behavior which will always procure respect, and which alone can procure it. No non-commissioned Officer must ever suffer himself to to be treated by the private men, or ever drink with them on any account; either from a notion of gratitude the non-commissioned Officer will think himself bound to be partial to the men that treat and drink with him, or the men will flatter themselves they are entitled to some indulgence: whenever this rule is not observed the Serjeant or Corporal will be immediately reduced to the Ranks as totaly unfit to support any authority as non-commissioned Officers..." <BR>
                          ><BR>
                          >(Of course it's just conjecture on my part, but I think this could be hinting that Corporals is NCO's, but just in case there are those who still don't accept this, it  continues)<BR>
                          ><BR>
                          >"...When a non-commissioned Officer has the charge of a squad he is entirely responsible for it; besides the common visitation he muse frequently look into and discover if the men are regular and obedient to orders, and he should take a pride in having it in perfect order. A non-commissioned Officer may be certain that, by overlooking the irregularities of the men, he not only incurs the censure of the Officers, but also the contempt of the men themselves. If a non-commissioned Officer is taken ill, he must report it to the Serjeant of his squad...<BR>
                          ><BR>
                          >(Let's look at this here,  the sick NCO is to report to the Sergeant, It's therefore not the sergeant and can't be the privates, so who's left? old two stripe!)<BR>
                          ><BR>
                          >...or if he commands a squad, to the Sergeant Major...<BR>
                          ><BR>
                          >(i.e. the sergeant or the corporal where there is no sergeant)<BR>
                          ><BR>
                          >...Non-commissioned Officers must be extremely well dressed at all times, and have an air that distinguishes them. The Serjeants and Corporals must have small pocket brushes when they parade their squads to clean any dirt or dust on the men's hats and coats - the same at turning out a relief when on guard. ...<BR>
                          >A Serjeant has authority to confine a Corporal and both Serjeants and Corporals have authority to confine privates, which, of course, they must do with discretion...<BR>
                          ><BR>
                          >...Non-commissioned Officers are to be promoted according to seniority if they merit it; but if the eldest of a rank is not fit for promotion the next who is must be taken, for no man will be promoted who is not really fit for the service; and Lance Corporals, if found equal to the appointment, will be promoted the same as full Corporals, and in every respect be obeyed and considered as such..."<BR>
                          ><BR>
                          >(Here's one that surprised me, official reference to Lance Corporals, New discussion please!)<BR>
                          ><BR>
                          ><BR>
                          >In addition to this material, this document outlines details for Officers, Regimental Staff, the Sergeant Major, Dummers, Regimental tailors and Recruits etc. It also covers numerous aspects of regimental life, including marriage!<BR>
                          ><BR>
                          >If anyone is interested, I'd be willing to put up some more exerpts from this little gem.<BR>
                          >Richard Feltoe<BR>
                          ><BR>
                          >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]<BR>
                          ><BR>
                          ></tt>
                          >
                          ><!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
                          >
                          ><br><br>
                          ><tt>
                          >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...<BR>
                          ><BR>
                          >Unit Contact information for North America:<BR>
                          >   ---------------------------------<BR>
                          >Crown Forces Unit Listing:<BR>
                          ><a href="http://1812crownforces.tripod.com">http://1812crownforces.tripod.com</a><BR>
                          ><BR>
                          >American Forces Unit Listing<BR>
                          ><a href="http://usforces1812.tripod.com">http://usforces1812.tripod.com</a> </tt>
                          ><br><br>
                          >
                          ><!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          ><!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
                          >
                          > <br><br>
                          > <div style="width:500px; text-align:right; margin-bottom:1px; color:#909090;">
                          > <tt>SPONSORED LINKS</tt>
                          > </div>
                          > <table bgcolor=#e0ecee cellspacing="13" cellpadding="0" width=500px>
                          > <tr valign=top>
                          > <td style="width:25%;">
                          > <tt><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+kingdom&w1=United+kingdom&w2=United+state+history&w3=Living+history&w4=War+of+1812&c=4&s=83&.sig=yOCD4LRv1cJGnuoPW5xb_Q">United kingdom</a></tt>
                          > </td>
                          > <td style="width:25%;">
                          > <tt><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+state+history&w1=United+kingdom&w2=United+state+history&w3=Living+history&w4=War+of+1812&c=4&s=83&.sig=OHAGtWlQE0gApi5weVc9_w">United state history</a></tt>
                          > </td>
                          > <td style="width:25%;">
                          > <tt><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Living+history&w1=United+kingdom&w2=United+state+history&w3=Living+history&w4=War+of+1812&c=4&s=83&.sig=sBWxzPE0XY3mv1_rm7tx9Q">Living history</a></tt>
                          > </td>
                          > </tr>
                          > <tr valign=top>
                          > <td style="width:25%;">
                          > <tt><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=War+of+1812&w1=United+kingdom&w2=United+state+history&w3=Living+history&w4=War+of+1812&c=4&s=83&.sig=GM4gWo_3xdFX-GDJfiPhow">War of 1812</a></tt>
                          > </td>
                          > </tr>
                          > </table>
                          >
                          ><!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          ><!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->
                          >
                          ><br>
                          > <div style="text-align:center; color:#909090; width:500px;">
                          > <hr style="border-bottom:1px; width:500px; text-align:left;">
                          > <tt>YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS</tt>
                          ></div>
                          ><br>
                          ><ul>
                          > <tt><li type=square> Visit your group "<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarOf1812">WarOf1812</a>" on the web.<br> </tt>
                          > <tt><li type=square> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<br> <a href="mailto:WarOf1812-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe">WarOf1812-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</a><br> </tt>
                          > <tt><li type=square> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.</tt>
                          ></ul>
                          ><br>
                          ><div style="text-align:center; color:#909090; width:500px;">
                          > <hr style="border-bottom:1px; width:500px; text-align:left;">
                          ></div>
                          ></br>
                          >
                          ><!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->
                          >
                          >
                          ></body></html>
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • Kevin Windsor
                          Well done Sir! I would like to read more. I am convinced, but you had me at Corporal s as NCO s! Alas, we only have to convince Chris, who I think, is only
                          Message 12 of 17 , Apr 13, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Well done Sir! I would like to read more.

                            I am convinced, but you had me at Corporal's as NCO's! Alas, we only have
                            to convince Chris, who I think, is only doing this to shirk the
                            responsibilities of an NCO and lay a greater burden on his poor Serjeant!
                            (who by the way has still not caught up on his sleep from being a new
                            father).
                            Poor old serjeant!
                            Mean nasty corporal! ;-)

                            Though, the idea that an NCO should not be treated to by the privates, might
                            convince any corporal that they are not an NCO because for them to admit
                            that would mean the privates couldn't buy them a drink anymore!

                            Kevin
                            89th


                            -----Original Message-----


                            Dear listoids
                            In combing through yet more "obsure" "out of period" and "irrelevant"
                            documents as two or three people have chosen to characterise my work as a
                            professional museum curator; I have come across something which they are
                            certain to dismiss once again. On the other hand, for those who are willing
                            to accept the following terms of relevance, it may prove of interest.
                            regards
                            Richard Feltoe
                          • Jim Krause
                            Dear Richard, Very interesting, indeed. I would certainly be interested in the duties and responsibilities of the Drummers of the Crown Forces, especially the
                            Message 13 of 17 , Apr 14, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dear Richard,
                              Very interesting, indeed. I would certainly be interested in
                              the duties and responsibilities of the Drummers of the Crown Forces,
                              especially the Drum Major, and Fife Major.

                              Yours,
                              Jim Krause
                              Music Director, Fife Instructor
                              Kaw Valley Fife & Drum Corps
                              http://www.old-sod-shanty.com/KVFDC.html
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.