Help support TMP

"Armies of the Irish Rebellion 1798 Osprey MAA" Topic

167 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Napoleonic Media Message Board

Back to the 18th Century Media Message Board

12,119 hits since 4 May 2011
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 

Adam from Lancashire04 May 2011 11:54 a.m. PST

According to amazon this will be by Stuart Reid and released in September.


I was very impressed with his recent MAA on the SYW Allied Army in the West. Looking forward to this.

Also found this 18th century-related book due out:

Wabash 1791 (Osprey Campaign Series)

I must admit my ignorance, in that i had never heard of this before today (heads to wikipedia)

zippyfusenet Inactive Member04 May 2011 12:00 p.m. PST

Wabash 1791. Worst defeat ever for the US Army. We don't brag about it.

Buckeye AKA Darryl04 May 2011 1:29 p.m. PST

Yep, much worse than Custer at Little Big Horn. I just hope whomever did Wabash has all their facts and uniforms correct!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Inactive Member04 May 2011 3:16 p.m. PST

Usual Osprey pandering to the Yanks rather than filling in key gaps like say Rivoli and Eylau.

Armies of the Irish rebellion? British line and yeomany, Irish assorted Deleted by Moderator civvies.

Some Plank obviously wrote this load of nonsense:

"In 1798, the Irish rose up against the corrupt English government run out of Dublin. Joined by both Protestants and Catholics, the rebellion quickly spread across the country. Although the Irish peasantry were armed mostly with pikes, they were able to overwhelm a number of small, isolated British outposts. However, even with the half-hearted assistance of the French, the Irish could not compete with the organized ranks of the British Army when under competent leadership. In a brutal turning of the tide, the Redcoats plowed through the rebels. In just three months, between 15,000 and 30,000 people died, most of them Irish. This book tells the story of this harsh, but fascinating, period of Irish history and covers the organization and uniforms of the forces involved."

Interesting really that one of my ancestors was quite happily traveling from co Sligo to dig canals in NW England at the time. Still, why let history get in the way?

Grand Dragon Inactive Member04 May 2011 4:01 p.m. PST

Still waiting for the Ospreys on the French Army of the Crimean War , and the Battle of The Alma…the Crimean War wasn't just fought by British armies x ahem x

clibinarium04 May 2011 5:14 p.m. PST

The 1798 MAA will presumably cover the French soldiers sent by the Revolutionary government and Britain's Hessian troops too.
Why should an extremely important event in Irish and British history be less worthy of Osprey's attentions than Napoleonic battles?

Cpt Arexu Inactive Member04 May 2011 5:17 p.m. PST

Thanks for clearing that up, Mister Hollins. You were practically eloquent. :[

morrigan Inactive Member04 May 2011 7:09 p.m. PST

So glad I strayed onto the Napoleonic board.

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP04 May 2011 7:32 p.m. PST

There is also this book, "The Uniforms of 1798-1803" by F. Glenn Thompson, c. 1998.

Very Osprey-ish, and a lot more plates.

vtsaogames Inactive Member04 May 2011 7:34 p.m. PST

Wabash. St. Clair detached one regiment before the battle. Thanks to this, the US Army still had one infantry regiment when the battle was over.

zippyfusenet Inactive Member04 May 2011 8:18 p.m. PST

"…pandering to the Yanks…" Henh.

Now that you've figured it out Dave, you should cash in. We need an Osprey Campaign volume on Andy Jackson's Florida Expedition. A Man-At-Arms on Tennessee Militia in the Creek War. Explode the tired old myths that Walt Disney and Fess Parker established to flatter those fat, dumb Americans. Should be right up your alley.

Grunt1861 Inactive Member04 May 2011 10:42 p.m. PST

"Usual Osprey pandering to the Yanks rather than filling in key gaps like say Rivoli and Eylau.

Armies of the Irish rebellion? British line and yeomany, Irish assorted Deleted by Moderator civvies."

I resemble that remark.

Joseph Halpenny was my 7x Great Grandfather.


And yes, I will be adding this Osprey title to my library.

majormike69 Inactive Member04 May 2011 11:24 p.m. PST

I lost interest as soon as I saw it was by Stuart Reid

Osprey Joe Inactive Member05 May 2011 3:15 a.m. PST

For anyone who is interested, there is a shot of one of the plates from Armies of the Irish Rebellion…


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Inactive Member05 May 2011 4:05 a.m. PST

French Revolutionary Cavalry – that would make a nice MAA…..

XV Brigada Inactive Member05 May 2011 4:32 a.m. PST

To be honest I can't see how either of these titles is going to be very attractive even in America. Wabash seems about as inspirational as the British expedition to Buenos Aires and the Irish rebellion was particularly 'grubby', ruthlessly put down and marked by sectarian atrocities on both sides. Neither seem very good wargaming material but I suppose Osprey has other customers.

At least Nomonham/Khalkin Gol is due in October. The Russian/Japanese border wars are fascinating. There is one coming out on the British battalion at Jarama called No Pasaran I think but the write-up on it is not very encouraging if it is taken from the book. Sorry OT!

Who writes the stuff on the Osprey web site anyway?


Gazzola05 May 2011 4:36 a.m. PST

Adam from Lancashire

Nice one. I think certain people who are complaining should realise that the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars did not just involve actions between the French and Austrians, so it will be a very welcome addition and I hope we see more like it.

Gazzola05 May 2011 4:53 a.m. PST


I agree with you on the title. It will be a very welcome addition to genuine enthusiasts and wargmaers and I do hope there will be more like it. Of course, I do want to see more on French vs Austrians actions, especially from the Revolutionary period, but I am also keen to see more, like this one, covering the lesser known actions and campaigns.

By the way, I liked that bit on your link where it mentions the rebel having the bed on his back for protection when he tried to set fire to the door. Classic.

Buckeye AKA Darryl05 May 2011 5:21 a.m. PST

"Wabash. St. Clair detached one regiment before the battle. Thanks to this, the US Army still had one infantry regiment when the battle was over."

Yes, indeed. The First American Regiment was sent chasing after deserters and missed out on the "big show." The remaining force of the Second American Regiment (which contained a company led by Robert Kirkwood, yes THAT Delaware Kirkwood of Cowpens fame, killed at Wabash) and Levies (and some Kentucky militia) were outclassed by their Indian adversaries under Michikiniqua (Little Turtle). The Second Regt. and the Levies were barely trained, the Levies were to serve for only six months so you can imagine their lack of motivation to become "real" soldiers. A bad show for St. Clair, who was personally brave but not the inspirational type that Wayne later was (he was also suffering from gout during the campaign, and still had the surrender at Ticonderoga looming over him). St. Clair's plan to build forts every twenty-five miles or so was thrown out the window (His force built two, Hamilton and Jefferson, which are more than 25 miles apart) and he thought he was much closer to the Indian villages near present day Fort Wayne than he actually was. There was some scouting forces out who ran into the Indians, but that little action was ignored. The KY militia was attacked early in the morning of November 4th, 1791, routed across the Wabash and into the main camp. The regulars formed a large rectangular formation, and put up a bit of a fight, but the Indians made short work of the artillerymen, taking away that vital firepower early in the fight.

The Harmar/St. Clair/Wayne Campaigns make fascinating reading. I have a pile of books (probably 25ish) ranging from overall treatments (Sword and Gaff) to journals written by some of the combatants. I am of the mind that St. Clair's men did not wear the later round hat style of Wayne's army, but standard headgear as seen during the AWI. The plate in Urwin's book (U.S. Infantry) showing the First American Regiment in the 1780s would be spot on. So using AWI (or is it the ARW?) figures would work well. For Wayne, there are two companies making figures in 28mm (Old Glory and Parkfield) and one in 20mm (Frying Pan & Blanket Amalgamated).

Sorry, just realized that I am rambling far away from the Irish Rebellion. I also own the Thompson's Irish Rebellion book, and it is filled with plates and info. Still giving some thought to gaming that conflict.

Gazzola05 May 2011 5:25 a.m. PST

zippyfusenet & Buckeye AKA Darryl

Yes, Wabash should also be a very interesting title, if it is done well. The British had their own version at Isandlwana in 1879 against the Zulus. But defeats can be just an interesting as the victories, and hopefully it will be another welcome addition.

SVP001 Inactive Member05 May 2011 8:02 a.m. PST

Hopefully this will inspire more 1798 rising figures.
A very intersting and sad period in Irish history and a welcome addition.

zippyfusenet Inactive Member05 May 2011 9:55 a.m. PST

Little Turtle at the Wabash is local history around here Gazzola, and we make the most of it. I hope we get some good color plates of 1790s Miami warriors.

Buckeye AKA Darryl05 May 2011 5:34 p.m. PST

Huzzah, Zippy!

Jeroen72 Inactive Member06 May 2011 6:48 a.m. PST

Both look interesting :)

macconermaoile06 May 2011 9:05 a.m. PST

We took Camolin and Enniscorthy
And Wexford storming drove out our foes
'Twas at Slieve Coilte our pikes were reeking
With the crimson blood of the beaten Yeos.

kreoseus2 Inactive Member06 May 2011 10:46 a.m. PST

Dave Hollins, thanks for the casual rascism.


Gazzola06 May 2011 1:22 p.m. PST


Sadly, what Mr. Hollins says is nothing more than what we expect from someone who's ego is far bigger than their ability and from someone who thinks nothing of writing their own 5 start vanity review.

XV Brigada Inactive Member06 May 2011 6:02 p.m. PST


I thought it was gratuitous too.


Adam from Lancashire07 May 2011 2:58 a.m. PST

Thanks Osprey Joe! Looks like I'll definitely be getting it.

10th Marines Inactive Member07 May 2011 5:53 a.m. PST

If Hollins doesn't like it that means that it is worth taking a look at it.

I'm ordering both the Irish Rebellion and the Wabash today.

It's also typical Hollins that he has to make some snide comment about something-now it's the Irish. That remark was totally uncalled for and should be withdrawn.


10th Marines Inactive Member07 May 2011 6:06 a.m. PST

If Osprey is doing the Wabash, perhaps they'll also do Anthony Wayne and the Legion of the United States ca 1794. That would be the campaign that came back and defeated the Indians that beat St. Clair for those who aren't familiar with the period.

The Legion of the United States is an absolutely fascinating topic. Anthony Wayne completely reorganized the US Army making it in effect an all-arms division such as the French had at the time. By doing that, the US Army was organizationally ahead of the British, Austrians, Prussians, and Russians of the period. It was also a first-rate combat organization.

Lastly, for those who are interested in good Ospreys, I would recommend the work of Robert Forzyk. He wrote an excellent one on Toulon a few years ago and I also have his Osprey on Warsaw 1944 on the rising of the Polish Home Army. It is another first-rate book. While ordering the Wabash, et al, this morning I also noticed that he has one on the Nez Perce campaign in 1877. If anyone is interested in the US Indian wars, this might be just the ticket.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Inactive Member07 May 2011 7:47 a.m. PST

Well, kreoseus2, I can see that an inability to spell and read the last part of my post can be added to the usual US need to use "English" in place of "British" – is that some kind of "rascism" (sic) too? Maybe funding Irish terrorism could be added into the mix? (or is just what suits the agenda at the time?).

DELETEDNAME Inactive Member07 May 2011 9:41 a.m. PST

The "Legion of the United Staes" organized by General Wayne for 1792-1796 included, upon completion, 4 "sub-legions" each under the command of a lieutenant-colonel:
-- 8 companies, later 6 companies, of [line] infantry (81 musketeers each)
-- 4 companies of riflemen or light infantry (81 riflemen or musketeers each)
-- 1 troop of light dragoons (65 dragoons)
-- 1 company of light artillery (50 gunners – typically about 4 pieces from a mixed "collection" of iron and brass pieces of various sources and calibres, 3-lbers and light howitzers being the most common)
These formations were thus the size and composition of a small European advance or rear guard or border-protection command.
These troops were uniformed and drilled. They were posted on the frontier of European settlement, and had a series of victories against Native Americans.

Here are nice summaries of the organization, including the officers' names:

Here are a large number of primary source materials from the era:
You can, of course, vary the search terms I used to find many more documents.

For comparison, a more or less "typical" European land army of the same period :

I do not see the American formation as particularly similar to or modelled "as the French had at the time". I would think of the French as using large formations of similar troops (French examples : infantry divisions composed of 7-9 bataillons of infanterie de ligne and 2-3 batallions of légère, with sometimes a few light cavalry attached during movement – cavalry divisions of 15-20 escadrons separated at least into light and heavy types, increasingly formed into a consolidated "réserve" – artillery fielded in uniform compagnies under the command of artillerists and reporting to general officers).

Actually, if one simply must draw a European parallel, the Austrian mixed brigades seem the closest in my opinion. Although really, I think all nations would form advance or rear guards or border-protection commands just about the same as did General Wayne in the USA. How "the US Army was organizationally ahead of the British, Austrians, Prussians, and Russians of the period" remains completely obscure to me.


DELETEDNAME Inactive Member07 May 2011 9:51 a.m. PST


"Osprey pandering"
Osprey is not an academic or charitable institution. They publish what they think will sell. The North American population is both much larger and, on average, has more disposable income than the UK population. One cannot argue against these demographics' influence on a company's decision-making process. This must remain an important consideration for Osprey.

"Deleted by Moderator"
Some, but by no means all, dictionaries note this as offensive slang used to disparage a person of Irish birth. Some people may therefore have this negative connotation for the phrase in their minds – as perhaps we have seen here. This may be especially true in the USA, as compared to the UK. I do not think you meant it this way – but the phrase does indeed have this negative meaning for some people.


kreoseus2 Inactive Member07 May 2011 10:07 a.m. PST

Mr Hollins,

I have no idea what you are talking about with the US references, I am Irish. I have read all of your posts here and found little of use there. I find it strange that you would find the fact that I made a typo noteworthy, but feel that racist comments acceptable.


Gallowglass Inactive Member07 May 2011 10:15 a.m. PST

"Deleted by Moderator"
Some, but by no means all, dictionaries note this as offensive slang used to disparage a person of Irish birth.

I am an Irish person. I regard Mr. Hollins' remark as being equivalent to the deliberate and malicious use of the word "Deleted by Moderator" in a TMP discussion on an African conflict.

I must say I am very disappointed to see such a remark made on this site. I would have expected considerably better behavior from a British person.

I would invite him to withdraw the remark. It does him and the wider British population of TMP very little credit.

10th Marines Inactive Member07 May 2011 10:39 a.m. PST

The original French divisions were units of all arms-infantry, cavalry, and artillery. It was this organization that the Prussians copied in 1806 before the Jena campaign. The next higher level for the French up to ca 1800 was the army, which would be composed of a number of divisions.

As early as 1796 both Hoche and Napoleon were taking the cavalry out of the divisions and forming them into their own homogenous units, the precursor of forming corps d'armee.

The Legion of the United States, as organized and trained by Anthony Wayne, and led into combat, was composed of infantry, cavalry and artillery.

In 1794 neither the Austrians, Russians, Prussians, nor English had permanent formations higher than the regiment. They would organize brigades and divisions when going on campaign, but they were not together during peace time and hadn't trained together. Further, they had rudimentary staffs, if they had them at all, and not the permanent staffs at army-level and at division that the French were developing and that Berthier formalized organizationally and functionally in 1795 with the Armee des Alpes.

The Legion of the United States was a self-contained and supporting all-arms division for all practical purposes, and in fact was the entire US Army in 1794.


DELETEDNAME Inactive Member07 May 2011 11:22 a.m. PST

Dear K,

I am still not seeing how the American sub-legions were "as the French had at the time" or "organizationally ahead of" the listed European armies.

Indeed, your response, to the extent it mentions the Americans, merely repeats (twice) that the Americans had infantry, cavalry and artillery in a single formation – quite the opposite from the direction in which the French were heading at the time.

The reason(s) behind the statement that the American were "organizationally ahead" of the continental Europeans remains completely obscure to me, I am sorry to say. I think you are actually saying that the Americans and French, although heading in opposite directions as they developed their land forces organizations, were both organizationally better than the other Europeans. Is that your opinion?


DELETEDNAME Inactive Member07 May 2011 11:32 a.m. PST

Dear K,

You wrote :
"[the non-French Europeans] would organize brigades and divisions when going on campaign, but they were not together during peace time and hadn't trained together."

Are you stating that the French practice at this time was different from other European nations?

If so, can you please provide primary source material that indicates the French of the period 1792-1796 training brigade or larger sized units together?

The French did not have "peace" at the time, and would not have it until 1801. But, can you provide primary source information about the French then keeping brigade and larger formation together for training in peacetime, prior to the formation of the Channel encampements in late 1804?

Thank you.

Gazzola07 May 2011 1:46 p.m. PST

Vanity Hollins' ego has long been bigger than his ability, that's why he tends to insult people when the topic has absolutely nothing to do with him. He tries to divert the attention to himself to prevent the topic becoming even more popular.

It is really sad that he can't understand why and certainly can't take it when something that does not involve him can be popular.

Let's hope Osprey have plans to produce more titles like this. They will certainly sell in the UK, never mind the US, and Stuart's book is already on my to buy list, as I imagine it is on many others.

DELETEDNAME Inactive Member07 May 2011 2:21 p.m. PST

Dear K,

You wrote:
"[the Europeans other than France] had rudimentary staffs, if they had them at all, and not the permanent staffs at army-level and at division that the French were developing and that Berthier formalized organizationally and functionally in 1795 with the Armee des Alpes"

This is Berthier's proposed staff organization:
« Document sur le service de l'état-major général à l'armée des Alpes » (1796)

A nice article (in English) provides some context:

For comparison of Berthier's 1796 proposal for organizing French general staff work, here are de Lacy's 1769 general staff regulations for the Austrians:
Erster Theil. Reglement für den General-Quartiermeisters-Stab.
Feldmarschall Franz Moritz Graf von Lacy [1712-1801]
Wien : J.T. Trattnern, 1769

For context, biographical notices about de Lacy :
German link
English link

K, can you please tell us what it is about Berthier's proposal that is less "rudimentary" or more "formalized organizationally and functionally" than de Lacy's Austrian system of about 3 decades earlier? Please do compare directly using passages in the original documents, as they are right here at these links. I read them both and they seem really quite the same thing to me.

You attempt to draw another difference between French practice and that other powers with regard to "permanent staffs at army-level and at division that the French were developing". Can you give any example of this in peacetime, again with reference to primary source documents. I realize that "peacetime" was rather rare for the French, but perhaps you could provide some primary source indications that these permanent staffs existed from late 1801 to late 1804, other than with troops essentailly on rather active occupation and counter-insurgency duty such as in south Italy? Alternatively, perhaps you could provide some primary source indication that wartime French staffs before 1801 at the divison and army level were intended to be permanent, or were intended to remain in place after a general peace?

I am sorry to ask so many questions. But, on this thread you have made several very broad and declarative assertions about things in the French military being unique, or really uniquely better or more developed, than in other armies. It is very hard to assess these ideas from your simple broad assertions. Specific primary or contemporary source information would be useful to help understand if you have correctly identified uniquely French developements, or – sadly, it happens – if you have been led astray by reading more modern secondary sources who themselves really did not understand their topics.

Thank you for your contributions.

XV Brigada Inactive Member07 May 2011 4:59 p.m. PST


Mr Hollins does not represent "the wider British population of TMP" and the inference of your suggestion that his remark reflects on the rest of us actually does you "very little credit".


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Inactive Member08 May 2011 8:23 a.m. PST

To the Irish and their US fans on here – you are quick enough to come running to us for money. Everyone in UK has contributed about 55 GBP each to a direct loan to you lot just a few months ago on top of contributions to international funding. Now, if it all bothers you so much, I will have my money back and you can get it from your supporters in the US – they should have it after giving up contributing to Noraid/IRA about ten years ago.

As for market size, the EU has a larger population and GNP than the US, so what is the point? I am not surprised that many books are published about the ACW and more recent wars, given the involvement of the US, but when so many key parts of European history are missing, you do wonder what Osprey are doing pandering to the US with books like this. It is only because the UKP is about the only major currency, which has declined against the USD that this policy has any basis – they took a right clobbering when the USD fell close to 2 to 1. One of your countrymen does have a grasp of the reality however link I was glad to see the Brazilian Exp Force in WW2 got an MAA as I have visited their memorial in Rio. the combined GNP of all of South America is greater than that of China – so these market size ideas are perhaps not as simple as some Rednecks might think.

As to the staff, this has been dealt with at some length on another thread TMP link where once again, it seems that assorted US authors have been making things up again in some rather bizarre attempt to distort European history.

clibinarium08 May 2011 9:05 a.m. PST

But what does that mean? That the decision of the UK government to loan the Irish Republic money (for reasons of mutual self interest), has somehow bought you the right to use offensive terms towards the Irish on this board?

DELETEDNAME Inactive Member08 May 2011 10:07 a.m. PST

"EU has a larger population and GNP than the US, so what is the point?"
They don't all read English. So Osprey would have to generate multiple editions.

In general, GDP is not a great measure to think about this issue. Something like "per capita (or per household) income after taxes" would be a better base metric for starting to think about consumer demand.

Dave, I don't think you really grasp the vocabulary of social identification as used in a multi-cultural environment. There is a level of care and politeness that is, now, common in the USA in this area.

My father's family was from Virginia. "Redneck" is often considered as offensive and/or derogatory when used by a non-Southerner with reference to a Southerner. There are also social class implications in the usage – the "red neck" coming from working stooped over in the fields, often with a red-clay soil.

I really don't think you wished to offend me with a hostile socio-cultural epithet just because I thought Osprey was under some market pressure to publish titles with North American appeal. But it could be thus interpreted.


kreoseus2 Inactive Member08 May 2011 10:52 a.m. PST

Mr Hollins,

I did not come running to you and it strains my imagination to believe anyone would. That your government saw fit to lend the Irish government money was neither your decision or mine, and the fact that they did does not give you the right to use insulting terms, either on or off TMP.


Supercilius Maximus Supporting Member of TMP08 May 2011 12:07 p.m. PST

It seems the "big hitters" on here are getting a little carried away with themselves.

First, Mr Hollins; as someone who is a fan of your work, the comment about the Irish was gratuitously offensive. Since you raised the matter, I can't help but wonder if you have some sort of issue with your Irish ancestry? And there are a number of Americans with Irish backgrounds on here who are definitely not pro-IRA, and one or two who are positively pro-British.

Second, Gazzola; in the same vein, you make good points, and then spoil it by pursuing what is clearly a personal grudge (whatever its merits or reasons) against Mr Hollins.

Third, Colonel K…..

<<The Legion of the United States is an absolutely fascinating topic. Anthony Wayne completely reorganized the US Army making it in effect an all-arms division such as the French had at the time. By doing that, the US Army was organizationally ahead of the British, Austrians, Prussians, and Russians of the period. It was also a first-rate combat organization.>>

1) I'm not sure how a tiny force of that size can be called "an all arms division" and compared with European formations of 10-20,000 men when it wasn't nothing like the same size.

2) Of course it was "all arms" – for all practical purposes, he had the entire US Army in one place. Where is the brigade structure that provides the intermediate level of command between divisional CO and each regiment?

3) Equally, it was hardly rocket science to divide his tiny numbers of artillery (no more than "battalion guns" in terms of number and calibre) and cavalry untrained in anything more than sub-unit actions, into "penny-packets" to support the only troops of any number – his infantry – in what was primarily infantry terrain.

What Wayne did was nothing more than form an expanded legionary corps – hence the name "Legion of the United States" and the use of "sub-legions" perhaps? – similar to those he had observed throughout the AWI and along the lines of de Saxe's model. To ascribe some brilliant plan to what was essentially just making the best of what he'd got, is to read too much into a simple situation, IMO.

I cannot speak for the other armies of Europe, but the British did not form "all arms divisions" because:-

(a) the Army was quite small – barely 50,000 Regulars in peacetime and expeditionary forces likely to be deployed overseas in war still more so – and so, arguably, did not need the extra layers of command required;
(b) both collectively across the Empire, and in terms of individual units within the British Isles, the Army was far more widely dispersed than those of other European forces, for political, economic and social reasons; and
(c) troops performed a number of functions often undertaken by civilian organisations in other nations, and were generally subordinate to the civil powers at all times.

In fact, the Dublin garrison – two brigades with their own staff, through which six battalions of Line infantry were rotated on a continuous basis, and which had artillery attached – was arguably a division-sized formation.

DELETEDNAME Inactive Member08 May 2011 1:05 p.m. PST

Dear Supercilius Maximus,

I agree on all points you make, and perhaps especially with "it was hardly rocket science".

Actually, the USA "Legion" looks exactly like the internal security command of a typical frontier (more or less military) governate in Russia. For example, here are the forces for the Perm Governor in the central Ural mountains ca. 1817 – a territory then somehwat larger in size and with about the same degree of "European" settlement as the American northwest frontier of 20 years earlier :
-- 1 infantry battalion of 4 companies
-- 4½ companies in detachments manning various government installations (saltworks, transit étapes, blockhouses, warehouses, military hospital, etc.)
-- 6½ companies in detachments at the 12 largest ethnically Russian settlements
-- 1 gendarme dragoon company
-- 3 Bashkir "cantons" which could field 10 light cavalry companies (the Bashkirs were a "friendly" Native People at this time)
-- 1 artillery company of 12 guns (6-lbers and likely some 3-lber unicorns)
-- 1 military hospital
-- 1 military-children's detachment and school

Is this also some kind of combined-arms division, some great innovation ?
Is this "organizationally ahead of the British, Austrians, Prussians"?
It sure does not look like that to me.


Gallowglass Inactive Member08 May 2011 1:23 p.m. PST


My experience with the vast majority of British TMPers (over a period of about ten years) has been such that they would not wish to be associated with the type of naked bigotry contained in Mr Hollins' online vomit as seen above. It never crossed my mind for a moment (until you raised it) that he might speak for the rest of you.

However, you have now certainly made me wonder whether there are others here that might share his "views". If there are, then that is a thought that disturbs me. I very much hope it is not the case, but if there are indeed British members here who think that way, I would certainly invite them to step forward and make themselves known.


Jemima Fawr Inactive Member08 May 2011 2:44 p.m. PST


As you say, the book is clearly worthless, as everything is already known.

Would you mind therefore filling me in on details of Militia, Yeomanry and Fencible organisation and uniform for the period 1797-1803? My research has turned up very little; particularly with regard to Fencible Cavalry and Provisional Cavalry regiments. You clearly feel that everything is known on the subject and that it's beneath contempt for Osprey to publish such a worthless book, so would you mind saving me the £8.00 GBP by giving me some pointers?

I'd be very grateful for whatever kind assistance and information that your knowledge of British uniforms circa 1797-1803 can reveal.

If not, would you mind Deleted by Moderator?



Pages: 1 2 3 4