"Frontiersmen during FIW" Topic

I was looking at the two packs of Conquest's frontiersmen plus the two Simon (Gerty and Kenton) and i wondered about their usefulness during the FIW, considering that english colonies didn't have a "coureur des bois" equivalent during this period, and the only units able to fight in wilderness where rangers. So, these trappers do not look really as rangers and they are too "wild" to act as local militia. So what can i do with these beautiful figures? they would be perfect for Kentucky or Tenesse militias but it's 20 years later, and i don't play AWI!!
Though,

As long as the American Colonies/United States had a frontier (especially east of the Mississippi), the pioneers who lived on the farthest edges included a class of men known generally as "long hunters." While their wives and children tilled small gardens and corn fields, these rugged individuals, often in small groups, went into Indian territory on "long hunts" for meat and for hides which could be sold. They were a very common type on the fringes of civilization and would definitely look wilder than the militia of the farming frontier.

I would use them for what they are, which is frontiersmen, scouts for formed troops, a local defense force, etc.

What they said. Frontier militia. It's just that during the SYW, the frontier was still in Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia and North Carolina, not yet in Kentucky or Tennessee.

Ok, thanks Guys! So now i've to traduce it in terms of play for musket and tomahawks : i think i will go for Torries with training(give the ability light troops) and native options.

Okay, I'm reading this and trying for my head not to explode. :-)

There was absulutely no such thing as coureur des bois. None. Bill Protz pointed out a long time ago that you don't see them listed in any OB of the period. None. Cause they are a wargamer fantasy. If you want them, great. If you want Orcs with your French, great. But neither fielded as a fighting force in the period.

There were no English (or really French) fur trappers of the period. Both sides traded with the Indians for furs. Both had formal government approved systems to do so, and both were, more or less, controlled by the government (in the colonies case, sometimes a particular colony).

The British relied on a handful of Indians, which in most cases proved next to useless. The French did the same, often with the same results. There were a handful of traders that knew some of the areas. Christopher Gist comes to mind for the English. Some English traders made it into the Ohio country before being run out prior to 1754.

By Pontiac's rebellion, there were a handful of settlers in the western PA mountains. They possessed limited scouting skills, but were better than the hapless highlanders that tended to get lost 30 yards off the path, according to Bouquet. He hired a small group of them to help with his march from Bedford to Fort Pitt in 1763. They did not prevent the ambush at Buhsy Run, and have no realy visibility in the battle (just as Braddock's Indian scouts tend to disappear from view in his battle as well).

Read, Breaking the Backcountry – where the author notes that some settlers didn't even have weapons.

Things are a bit different by 1775, but not the same for the F&I period.

So who, exactly, were the Irish and German squatters who ran the Delawares out of the Susquehanna valley in the 1740s-50s? And how did they run those Indians off – harsh language? Someone burned the Delaware chief Teedyuscung's cabin down over his head, though no one was ever convicted of the deed.

I think you under-estimate the back-country whites of the 1750s. Okay, they weren't all commandos. Some weren't well-equipped to survive on the frontier. But there were some real scouts and fighters among them, who didn't just get lost in the woods.

Historygamer, there are numerous primary sources purporting that there were white fur-trappers pre-Jeremiah Johnson, more specificly from the early 1700's on. They may not have been formed into a regiment to appear in an OOB, but to categorically deny their existance based on that is pretty narrow-minded.

Shortly after Ward published his book, the anti-gun movement seized upon it to try to discredit the "'Armed Militia' image"; since the book is no longer cited in the anti-2nd Amendment arguement you can make a educated guess as how well his thesis stood up to the light of actual historical research.

As a related aside, an ancestor of mine immigrated into the South Carolina Colony in the 1740's, according to the census records he was a riflesmith/blacksmith in the Spartanburg district meaning that he was primarily making rifles with blacksmithing as a sideline, employing 12 assistants/apprentices in what was a frontier area of the time. Hardly an indicator of an unarmed frontier.

The Delawares in the Susquehanna valley were an isolated tribe, bereft of support from their supposed Iroquois over lords, and the rest of their tribe out west. But, what really does their situation have to do with the F&I, which was the subject of the post? There was no Crown initiative directed up that way. The war was fought along both Braddock's Road and the Forbes Road – where these supposed forces played zero role.

So while you can cite isolted incidents of frontier settlers thumping on the Indains (which I would agree with, especially post war), again, has nothing to do with the F&I War, or figures/units you'd put on the game board for same – at least if you were being historically correct.

The same can be said for whatever handful of French trappers may have been wandering the woods in Ohio and Michigan. How many were at Braddock's defeat? None.

Field them if you like, they played no role in the outcome of the war and can't be found in any period OBs.

I'm not aware of Ward's book being discredited, and it tracks with every other book I have ever read on the topic, only in more detail. So I'm not sure I follow what you were saying against it. A quick search of critiques turns up nothing but glowing reviews.

I am fairly well read on both the Braddock and Forbes campaigns, but perhaps someone can put forth something about these suspect forces on the frontier, as I am always open to new research and documentation.

Is the Ward book the one where the author claimed that contrary to common belief, the American citizenry had few guns? The author based his writing on research of wills and other property documents and noted the widespread absence of firearms being mentioned. When pressed by other scholars for his research, he claimed it was written down by him onto notebooks which were stored in his basement and subsequently destroyed by flooding.

thatotherguy,

South Carolina ian't exactly F&I war territory, but I would venture to guess your ancestor may have been making trade guns for the Indians at least part of the time.

I'd also be interested to see anything you have discrediting Ward. I understand his work may not be popular with some, but I've never come across anything that said it wasn't accurate. Personally I consider it an excellent work on my locale in the period.

I don't think Ward made a big deal about firearms, other than to say that not everyone had them. So what if they did or didn't? They were farmers, not frontiersman.

There were a handful of well known frontiersman in the 1750s that ventured over the mountains to trade good for furs. You could probably count them on both hands.

I have never read of any French fur trappers in the Ohio Valley.

Look. It's a wargame army. Do what you want. But I'm just saying they didn't really exist in the area I am talking about.

History Gamer:

French Sources of the 17th and 18th most specifically talk about European and mixed blood people leaving the settlements that were prescribed by the authorities
and living with the Native Americans. They blame these people for many of the problems that they (the French) had in establishing and maintaining their settlements in Canada.

A British Officer even uses the term "Gens du Bois" in describing the people that they fought against and makes comparisons between them and the Croats and Pandours that
were active in Imperial/Austrian armies during the 18th century.

v/r

Joe

I don't doubt that, but I suspect they went native and would have dressed and looked as such. There are some accounts of British soldiers and American civilians captured and later adopted by the tribes too.

But please tie it all back to the original post:

"two packs of Conquest's frontiersmen plus the two Simon (Gerty and Kenton) and i wondered about their usefulness during the FIW"

"two packs of Conquest's frontiersmen plus the two Simon (Gerty and Kenton) and i wondered about their usefulness during the FIW"

They're frontier militia. They can defend their neighborhoods against Indian and French raiders. They can even pass for non-uniformed Rangers and go on patrol, with or without the British Army. They're fine. Except maybe the guy with the bear-trap is a little extreme…but he's so stylish!

I wouldn't say their was no instances of French fur traders engaging in battles, as Bienville describe voyageurs as being present during his campaign against the Chickasaw in 1736. It is a bit earlier for sure, but there is evidence they had a military role in the early 18th century.

As for M&T I would consider giving these guys the civilian morale class as well,as they tended to be pretty terrible in fair fights.

I agree with all of you but…. i definitively will use these guys!!! they will be "non existing" frontiersmen and they will fight their "non existing" coureur des bois opponents!!! … And maybe i will display some orcs later! ;-)

Again, it is a wargame army, so whatever floats your boat. :-)

So it occured to me that I hadn't looked at these figures. So I just did. They are nice looking figures, to be sure, but smack of Mountain Men, golden age.

Hello All,
Some very interesting conversation going on here. All of you have brought up some good points. You will be glad to know that all of you are right in some way or another. Please read the link below to what is an excellent description of coureur des bois. There were no fighting units of coureur des bois technically, but they did fight with the French forces. They were grouped with the milice(militia), and fought as such. The western militia had these types of troops incorporated into their units, and probably explains their excellent woods fighting tactics that they used (adapted from the natives).Frontiersmen(traders and guides) were the English version of the coureur des bois but lived on the fringes of the settlements of the frontier. Settlers were those who lived on the frontier but were more domesticated. Farmers and shop keepers would be a good description of their type. So yes all the above that you have been talking about were real, some just may have had their actual use mixed up.
take care,
Keith
link

Interesting link, but it says nothing beyond 1710 that I can see, and does not mention any military action during the F&I period – which is what this topic was about.

There were a handful of English traders on the frontier prior to the war, but they were run out before the war by the French and/or their Indian allies. Johnson controlled the fur trade in NY, and his agents such as Croghan controlled it in the western PA region. The French milice has no military history to boast of that I can find.

The fighting in western PA was borne by the French Marines, and those further north and east by the Marines and the French army regulars. The French militia was used as muscle to transport the goods, boats, canoes. The French militia was used in a abortive night attack at Quebec, where they ended up shooting at each other instead of the English, much to the chagrin of the then Canadian governor, who was stealing the colony blind, along with the intendant.

Some French Marines (often foreigners) and Marine officers (usually Canadian) from their outposts accompanied Indians on raids. They were very adept at butchering women and children, picking off the odd British patrol or man, but less so taking on regular forces (which they avoided when possible) as the war progressed.

Their two shining moments were in attacking Braddock, who had very inferior troops and was caught in a awkward formation, and in attacking Grant with about a 2:1 ratio (Grant was an idiot and continued to be so during the AWI period). The French Marines proved incompetent when facing inferior numbers, but well drilled and disciplined troops at Fort Niagara in 1759.

French Marine officers, such as Langlade, were often refered to as partisan officers, but they held a royal commission, and were not fur trappers, and certainly didn't wear Jeremiah Johnson beards.

Again, field them if you want, but they are largely fantasy as a fighting force.

As far as the Indians themselves being almighty – if they were that good then how come the French blundered into the front of Braddock's column, and the Indains had no idea Grant was outside the fort till he beat to arms and had the bagpipes play?

link

link

The French militia were present at Braddocks defeat, and the Marines were not the only ones to bear the brunt of the fighting in western Pa.. The militia was very much represented here and other actions. When I have more time I will list books and sources to back up my post. There is nothing mythical about frontiersman and coureur des bois.
take care,
Keith

I know they were there, but they ran away in the first few minutes of the action, as they were not a trained military force, and had no frontier experience. They were a bunch of famers and tradesmen. They were not coureur des bois, they were civilians, pressed into annual military service to help row, carry, and transport. They had zero fighting value – just as the English militia did as well. But I will be interested if your sources cite them as something else – but having probably read the same books and sources you probably have – I would be surprised.

I worked at Fort Pitt Musuem. I ran French and Indian events for years in the region. I worked with all the regaional parks and staff, and am very familiar with the documentation of who and what was in the region.

There were a handful of English traders with Gist and Croghan early on, but these guys did not have the stick-with-itness to stay for long campaigns. Same for the French milice, (and Indians) which returned home at the end of their terms to gather their crops and work their trades.

I know that F&I is full of fancy thoughts of rangers, coureur des bois, Indians, trappers, etc. Populate your warmgame armies with them if you like, but the real history is something else.

Oh, and yes the French Marines were the ones that bore the brunt of the fighting, along with their Indian allies – or at least those they could get to stay for any time. The Indians were undependable, and were ready to depart just before Washington surrendered at Fort Necessity. There was no other military force at Fort Duquense other than the Marines, and no French regulars ever ventured beyond Fort Niagara.

But if you can find a credible source that says otherwise, I'd be interested in hearing it.

I would also add this – you might be confusing French Marine officers that went out with war parties. They were commissioned officers, sometimes had other Marines with them, and were there to kind of lead (as much as they could) Indian war bands on raids. How they may have dressed down in the field is a matter of speculation. Many of them did grow up on the frontier, but they were French Canadian Marine officers (such as Langlade).

Regular military forces often dressed differently in the field. Forbes scolded his officers during the 1758 campaign admonishing them to wear their red coats when on duty, especially for courts martials. So I grant you, there is some lattitude in field dress in all wars, including this one.

LaForce was the other French officer that was captured and held in Williamsburg that I was thinking of.

The book that went after the "armed militia" was Belisle's _Arming of America_, which turned out to be fraudulent.

link

So perhaps these guys are mixing up their books? I dunno. :-)

link

While this plate is certainly not perfect (note the beard on the one guy), it gives an idea of what Canadians looked like during this period. No buckskins, not coonskin cap, etc. A lot of the CMH plates are out of date, but other than the beard, this one probably isn't that bad.

>I know they were there, but they ran away in the first few >minutes of the action, as they were not a trained military >force, and had no frontier experience.

These are the guys who decamped right after Beaujeu got killed.

Yep. They took off and at that point the entire French force had to take a morale check, which they passed. But it was a close thing. I think it was Dumas who stepped up and took over, and waved the Indians and French Marines to start moving down the flanks of the British column.

The only other action I can think of that French militia was involved in was during the siege of Quebec, and I covered that outcome in an earlier post. Honestly, I am not sure how anyone could have expected anything else from militia anyway. They were little better than levies.

To be fair, the Virginia militia was little better. I remember reading an account from, "Soldiers When they Want to Be" when they were trailing an Indian raiding party that had taken prisoners. They had almost caught up to them when the militia held a meeting and voted to go home, as they were afraid of being ambushed. I think that is rolling snake eyes for a morale check in a game. :-)

Re: the frontier, Eckert's book _Dark and Bloody River_ is pretty good.

link

I have no idea why this is classified as "historical fiction." It isn't. I think Eckert's style confuses reviewers. It would have to be the most heavily footnoted fiction I've ever seen…

I loved his books though. And I think he did do a lot of research for them, IIRC.

Hello All,
Will get back on this topic with some sources, maybe this week-end. The militia were present as a fighting force at Loyalhanna,Grants Defeat,Braddocks Defeat, Fort Necessity. They were also envolved heavily in New York being at Fort William Henry, that source comes from Bougainville himself, as he makes the statement that he preferred the western Canadian militia to the more rural types. Any how more later.
take care,
Keith

I never said they weren't present, I am just saying they were not significant. There is a difference. :-) But either way, they were not coureur des bois, they were militia.

Fort Ligonier – desparate attempt to stampede the British army. Fail.

Grant's Hill – overwhelmingly Indian victory over poor tactical deployment by idiot Grant.

Braddock's defeat – Militia ran away

Fort Necessity – French Marines and Indians were the main force, Indians almost walked away if Washington held out a little bit longer

Fort William Henry – major French army forces, siege guns, end of story.

Sorry historygamer,
I will have to agree to disagree with most of the above, except that you and I agree that there were no units of coureur des bois. These types blended in with the rest of the militia. On a more cordial note. You say you worked at the Fort Pitt museum. Do you still live in the Burgh? Because I live in Latrobe close to were we think Dagworthy's Breastworks were. Colonel Dagworthy commanded the Maryland Provincials(but they were used more like rangers due to being on the frontier at Fort Cumberland).One other thing I will agree with you on, Grant was a blundering idiot. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory ! What a waste of a lot of good troops. I have some of the Marylanders up on my website,check the link. I must say they really look better equiped then what the poor Maryland boys were.
take care,
Keith
loyalhannaoutpost.com

Father of All Logic

The book you are thinking of is Michael A Bellesiles 'Arming America'.

link

Google Bellesiles and you find a host of material dealing with the controversial assertions in his book.

Ward's book is 'Breaking the Back Country'.

link

The latter is the one referred to by historygamer.

Grant's Hill – overwhelmingly Indian victory over poor tactical deployment by idiot Grant.

Historygamer

If ever I need a one sentence description of Grant's defeat I going to use that!

It was a poorly defined mission against an unknown enemy force. Grant wanted to grab some glory, and perhaps Fort Duequesne if he could. He led a force of approximately 900 men, of both regulars (77th and 60th) and Provincials (PA, MD, VA, NC).

The English were desperate for intelligence about the forces at Fort Duquesne. Grant was supposed to go on a recon in strength, grab the fort if he could, at the very least bring back intelligence. His forces tried to mount a blundering night attack on the fort – only to find out they were still miles away. Regrouping the next morning, and after burning some sort of French storage building, Grant deployed his men in company sized packets on the hill overlooking the fort (since removed during the late 19th century, but about present day Grants street in Pittsburgh, around the city/county building). His plan was to ambush the French and Indians. He lured them out by having his pipers play. Needless to say the French (Marines) and Indians were stunned he was there, and they swarmed out of the fort, picking off each company in turn. It was estimated they had about 2,000 men – but that could be high as it is impossible to say how many Indians were there. I suspect there was minimal Frenich militia since they had probably returned to bring in the harvest for the winter. There were Marines from some of the western outposts there, who would return home shortly themselves.

Funny, but if Grant had delayed his attack a week or so the Indians probably would have been gone.

There is a great story that prior to all this the English dispatched a scout, with some Indians, to scout out Fort Duquesne. The unlucky fellow got bit by a rattlesnake in transit, and had to return to camp for treatment. So his mission was a failure, thus the Grant debacle.

I do not presently live in Pittsburgh, but return there often for family and friends. In fact, I hope to return there next weekend to participate in a soldier display at the Neville House Plantation – weather permitting me to cross the mountains to go west. :-)

I'll have some of my AWI guys on display, maybe my figures from Brigadier Young collection, including some featured in the picture on the back of the dust jacket.

Did the French really have 2000 men against Grant? Up to 1000 native americans seems to fit (based on the numbers agaist Braddock); but, 1000 others? I would think 200-300
Compagnies Franches and Militia; Perhaps, 300-400 at most.

Comments Please.

v/r

Joe

That is the hard part to figure. I suspect your suggested numbers are closer to the truth. I'd have to do some digging on that, but again, the Indians didn't turn in a daily roster. :-)

There are very few first person accounts of the battle, so it is hard to really figure out the numbers and what exactly happened.

It is funny that afterwards in a letter to Bouquet, from captivity, Grant said he hoped his loss would not hurt his chances of promotion. lol

I have about 30 books on the FIW, and one of them is the Bouquet Papers: The Forbes Campaign. I am sure one of the books gives an estimate of what they feel comprised the French forces. If I am not mistaken the break down was about 500-600 Marines and militia, and 900-1000 Indians. I will find out. I wish I had time to respond more in depth and timely, but between work and getting ready for Cold Wars, time is tight.
take care,
Keith

I'll give you credit Keith, you sure stick by your militia. :-)

Turning to the bible of F&I (Parkman), and also consulting a number of other first person accounts – the answer about the French and Indian numbers is – no one is really sure. Parkman footnotes it as saying that Bigot (the great thief himself) noted that 3,500 daily rations were delivered to Fort Duquesne throughout the summer. Not surprising given the beefed up garrison numbers of called up militia to help work on the fort, and the called up Marines from other posts out west, and of course, the always hungry Indians – who ate far more than the allowable French ration. This ration report was given by Bigot to the Ministry on 22 November, 1758. No doubt the Intendent was swiping some of those rations and reselling them to the colony. :-)

Ligneris reported on 18 October that the number of troops had fallen to 1,180, which included Indians. That would reflect the milice sent home as their term of service was up, and the Indians left for their western homes.

I think Bouquet (who was not present) reported the estimating French force attacking Fort Ligonier in October around 1000. Given the 18 October report, that number might be generous. Of course the result of that attack was nothing strategic, as the Indians all went home, and the western French troops went home as well as the garrison supplied could not sustain a large force throughout the winter.

The fact is that actual documents on French strength are weak, and even weaker on breakdouts between whites and Indians. But, at Braddock's defeat, there were a reported 72 colonial regulars (mareins), 146 militia (who reportedly all ran away), and about 600 Indians. My point being – the militia all ran away, leaving the fighting to the marines and Indians. Also note the militia numbers would have been higher at this time of year as they had been called up for summer service, and Fort Duquesne had just received re-enforcements, with the militia providing the canoe and carrying power to the permanent garrison troops arriving from Niagara/Canada.

I thank you for the praise(I think HA!HA!HA!),of defending my position. I am a strong admirer of Stonewall Jackson , so that may say something for my personality. Honestly, I would not debate something that I did not have documentation from. Some of those sources will be from Rene Chartrand and some will be from French officer accounts. The Canadian militia do not receive the credit that some of them deserve. The Montreal militia was some of the best New France had to offer. Some of the militia could match, if not best most of the ranger units they went up against. When you look at the militia it is best to divide them up. Not all the militia were farmers and shop keepers. That may be true for the most eastern regions, but Montreal and west were a whole different ball game. As far as the militia running away at Braddocks defeat. There are sources to the contrary that at first they and the Indians both fell back, only to start back and flank the column. I will have to dig into the sources and put it together.
take care,
Keith

While Rene Chartrand has produced wonderful stuff most of the time, his Osprey book on the Battles of the Mon was a mess. Rene has published several things in error or lacking foundation of documentable fact. He is the only author that I know of that claims the militia turned around at Braddock's defeat – in his Osprey book. I think his national pride sometimes gets in his way of balanced analysis. I believe that book is regarded so poorly that Fort Necessity refuses to sell it.

While I am sure that at least a few of the militia stuck around for some pot shots at Braddock, the point is, other than Chartrand, no military historians that I know of give them any credibility as a military force.

When push came to shove, it was the regulars on both sides who won and lost the war, and there was little the provincials/militia did to affect that in the end.

Oddly enough, the same would prove true during the AWI. There was a militia contribution…but they didn't win the war by a long shot.

I'm trying to figure out why your head exploded in the first place, historygamer. The offending posts wondered how to use Conquest's frontiersmen on the English side of the FIW. The conclusion: frontier militia. The coureur des bois reference was only passing.

"There was absulutely [sic] no such thing as coureur des bois."

Not as a military unit, you're right. The (very useful) term simply refers to hundreds of young adventuresome French colonists from every class and occupation who independently participated in the fur trade. Along the way, they acquired from their Indian clients the skills to survive in the wilderness, making them excellent scouts and wilderness fighters. Many (most?) moved on to other occupations, among them soldiering in the Marines and/or militia. Many definitely did serve in various capacities during the war. But, as you say, not as independent companies. In wargaming terms, it's really just a skill set.

Dealing with the Battle of Quebec? No coureur des bois. A raid on a British farmstead? Go ahead and throw in a unit. I think "Muskets and Tomahawks" gets it right: Their French militia is superior to British militia, and for an extra point you can convert your militia unit into "coureurs des bois" which gives them benefits (like Indians) for being in cover. It's a skill set, remember? (M&T also, rightly, has local militia for the French, which are as lousy as the British)

Now, would a French and Indian raiding party sort itself into homogeneous units before descending on the unsuspecting British settlement? ("Right. You 6 Young Warriors, over there. You 6 Braves, with me.") No, all would be mingled together. The use of units is a convention of the rules, necessary for a playable game at this scale.

In the same vein, is the very wonderful M&T scenario generator at all realistic? Nope. Since every scenario involves buildings (a settlement of some kind), you should know from reading "Breaking the Backcountry" (and books like "Bloody Mohawk") that French/Indian raids on settlers were NEVER actively contested by militia or British troops of any kind. 95% of actual historical scenarios would have the following setup in M&T: "British force: Settlers only, half unarmed, 1/6 or less the amount of figures as in the French force. French force: at least 50% of points as Indians, the rest Marines and/or militia ("coureur des bois" optional). English set up first, may not move until after a French unit is activated." Sound like a fun wargame? It sure is historical, though.

At the end of it all, we're talking about a game. History is a part, but so is play-ability. As you say, "Look. It's a wargame army. Do what you want." Not worth head explosions. I find duct tape to be helpful, BTW. And I will follow you and Keith's continued militia discussion with interest.

Mike O

Hello Mike,
Funny you brought up the militia subject. I have been busy at work and getting ready for the show. So today I decided to have a shut down day and relax. I plugged in the DVD "The War That Made America"(4+ hours). They were describing the action of Braddocks Defeat and mentioned how the Marines held the road while the natives and militia worked their way around the flank. I know that there has been alot of debate about the performance of the militia here lately. I may have come up with a reasonable explanation for the varying sources. The 146 militia that were with the French were described as youthful(used for hauling equipment and supplies), and that the veteran militia were at Presqu'Isle and had not reached Fort Duquesne. Two sources "Guns At The Forks by Walter O'Meara page 144-145, Monongahela 1754-55 by Osprey(Rene Chartrand)page 64-65. O'Meara describes Dumas rallying the natives and militia, Chartrand describes half the militia running away yelling "save yourselves if you can", and then filtering back in later. Two other sources "The French Invasion of Western Pennslyvania page 83, and "Memoir of a French and Indian War Soldier" page 130, mention nothing of any troops running away, but had started to waver. Two other sources " La Marine: The French Colonial Soldier in Canada" page 29 mentions that the militia ran, and Leading By Example: Partisan Fighters & Leaders of New France 1660-1760 volume 1, page 53, mentions that a lot of the milice had run away. So now with the above information, and the divided sources(literally), I have come to the opinion that not all the militia ran away,but some most definitely did, and maybe those who did filtered back in. Dumas' account has come under question as a pat myself on the back account, and may have to be taken with a grain of salt. With that being said I do not believe there can be a 100% accurate account of the performance of the milice. We do know why the French and Indians prevailed at Braddocks Defeat. Dumas told them "May the Forest be with you" (and it really was). Sorry guys, I really love Star Wars and could not resist. More info on the milice will follow, when I get the chance.
take care,
Keith