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

Re: [WarOf1812] Royal Marines

Expand Messages
  • BritcomHMP@aol.com
    In a message dated 7/29/2000 2:22:54 PM Central Daylight Time, coronet@oix.com writes:
    Message 1 of 10 , Jul 29, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 7/29/2000 2:22:54 PM Central Daylight Time,
      coronet@... writes:

      << Actually, the Royal Marines are not a regiment but a force; ie. The Royal
      Navy, The Royal Air Force, etc. They did have their own artillery during
      the 1812 War and have had various other units in their history: e.g. 6th
      Commando (RM) during WW II.
      It is not a Regiment. >>

      Absolutely, you were right to pick up my slip :-)

      Cheers

      Tim
    • john gauthier
      Tim; Damn decent of you to pick that up. They were at the seige of Fort Erie and at Kingston and virtually all points in between. On the Upper Great Lakes
      Message 2 of 10 , Jul 30, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Tim;
        Damn decent of you to pick that up. They were at the seige of Fort Erie
        and at Kingston and virtually all points in between. On the Upper Great
        Lakes they were represented by the Royal Newfoundland Regiment and on the
        Lower Lakes by both the Royal Newfoundland Regiment and the Incorporated
        Militia of Upper Canada who escorted American prisoners from Niagara and
        environs to Kingston for transport to Montreal.
        Interesting when you actually get into it.
        More if you want answers to particular questions.
        Cheers,
        John.
        ----------
        > From: BritcomHMP@...
        > To: WarOf1812@egroups.com
        > Subject: Re: [WarOf1812] Royal Marines
        > Date: July 29, 2000 3:59 PM
        >
        > In a message dated 7/29/2000 2:13:55 PM Central Daylight Time,
        > coronet@... writes:
        >
        > << What I'm saying is the 'Royal' Marines' did not exist prior to 1802.
        If
        > you're doing Rev War marines the distinctions would be white facings and
        > the Squadron plumes. After 1802 (1812) you would have the distinctions
        as
        > mentioned. What the Royal Marines take as their date of formation has
        no
        > bearing on what we do. >>
        >
        > Oh I see John, didn't quite get it at first. You are quite right of
        course
        > Marines pre 1802, Royal Marines post.
        >
        > Cheers
        >
        > Tim
        >
        >
        >
        > 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...
      • easeufe@aol.com
        In a message dated 7/29/00 1:30:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, coronet@oix.com ... And by 1814, there were 31,000 in service around the world. Divisional orders
        Message 3 of 10 , Jul 30, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 7/29/00 1:30:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, coronet@...
          writes:

          > On the outbreak of the war with France
          > in 1793 the were rapidly augmented, so that by 1801 they had reached a
          > strength of some 24,000 men. During this period the marines took part in
          > all the major sea-battles and most of the actions undertaken by the Navy
          > ashore.
          > The uniform of the marines generally conformed to that of the regular
          > infantry,k but there were small differences from division to division."
          > (My note: black plumes for the Chatham Division, white over red for the
          > Plymouth Division, Portsmouth Division not known, possibly all white).
          >
          And by 1814, there were 31,000 in service around the world.

          Divisional orders in 1787 for Plymouth show that Grenadiers wore White
          feathers topped Red, Battalion wore white and Light Infantry wore green.
          Divisional orders for Chatham in 1791 requests that "all Officers except
          those belonging to the flank companies are to wear a black feather in their
          hats upon the parade".
          Plymouth in 1791 also changes the feathers for the battalion companies
          to 'tufts'.

          Ed Seufert, LCpl
          1812 Royal Marines
        • easeufe@aol.com
          In a message dated 7/29/00 3:13:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, coronet@oix.com ... Of course it doesn t and the original point of the emails was where the Royal
          Message 4 of 10 , Jul 30, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 7/29/00 3:13:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, coronet@...
            writes:

            > What I'm saying is the 'Royal' Marines' did not exist prior to 1802. If
            > you're doing Rev War marines the distinctions would be white facings and
            > the Squadron plumes. After 1802 (1812) you would have the distinctions as
            > mentioned. What the Royal Marines take as their date of formation has no
            > bearing on what we do.
            >
            Of course it doesn't and the original point of the emails was where the
            Royal Marines were placed in relation to other units on the group's units
            list as created by Larry I, Emperor of the North. The Royal Warrant of
            1666 seems to place them after the Guards; by the RevWar, they are
            listed between the 49th and 50th Regiments. By rights, they are part
            of the Royal Navy (after all Admirals hold the senior ranks - Cockburn
            was a Colonel). As I said before, Mon Capitaine Matthews is now
            maintaining the list, and I really don't care where the Royal Marines are
            listed (as long as they're right behind the Royal Navy) ;-p

            BTW, John, do you portray shipboard or battalion Royal Marines? And
            how many men do you have?

            Ed Seufert, LCpl
            1812 Royal Marines
          • easeufe@aol.com
            In a message dated 7/29/00 4:42:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, coronet@oix.com ... I believe the Royal Newfoundland Regiment was chosen to man ships on the lower
            Message 5 of 10 , Jul 30, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 7/29/00 4:42:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, coronet@...
              writes:

              > they were represented by the Royal Newfoundland Regiment and on the
              > Lower Lakes by both the Royal Newfoundland Regiment

              I believe the Royal Newfoundland Regiment was chosen to man ships
              on the lower lakes was due to it being largely made up of men from the
              coastal areas. The 1st and 2nd Battalions, Royal Marines, came from
              the Chesapeake campaign and arrived in Quebec at the end of October
              1813. Yeo, in order to man his ships on Lake Ontario, was stripping
              personnel from ships at Quebec. Its quite possible that Royal Marines
              made their way to the Lakes earlier than the arrival of the two battalions.

              Ed Seufert, LCpl
              1812 Royal Marines
            • john gauthier
              Ed; For now there s just me but a few of the lads in the IMUC occasionally do Royal Marines if the situation warrants it. I am also doing the IMUC Lt. thing
              Message 6 of 10 , Jul 31, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                Ed;
                For now there's just me but a few of the lads in the IMUC occasionally do
                Royal Marines if the situation warrants it. I am also doing the IMUC Lt.
                thing with the Colours when I can make it out. I believe the best section
                we have had is about 6 bodies on shipboard actually uniformed properly.
                John.

                ----------
                > From: easeufe@...
                > To: WarOf1812@egroups.com
                > Subject: Re: [WarOf1812] Royal Marines
                > Date: July 30, 2000 11:44 PM
                >
                > In a message dated 7/29/00 3:13:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                coronet@...
                > writes:
                >
                > > What I'm saying is the 'Royal' Marines' did not exist prior to 1802.
                If
                > > you're doing Rev War marines the distinctions would be white facings
                and
                > > the Squadron plumes. After 1802 (1812) you would have the
                distinctions as
                > > mentioned. What the Royal Marines take as their date of formation has
                no
                > > bearing on what we do.
                > >
                > Of course it doesn't and the original point of the emails was where the
                > Royal Marines were placed in relation to other units on the group's units

                > list as created by Larry I, Emperor of the North. The Royal Warrant of
                > 1666 seems to place them after the Guards; by the RevWar, they are
                > listed between the 49th and 50th Regiments. By rights, they are part
                > of the Royal Navy (after all Admirals hold the senior ranks - Cockburn
                > was a Colonel). As I said before, Mon Capitaine Matthews is now
                > maintaining the list, and I really don't care where the Royal Marines are
                > listed (as long as they're right behind the Royal Navy) ;-p
                >
                > BTW, John, do you portray shipboard or battalion Royal Marines? And
                > how many men do you have?
                >
                > Ed Seufert, LCpl
                > 1812 Royal Marines
                >
                >
                >
                > 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 message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.