"Frontiersmen during FIW" Topic

"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."

Okay, please cite some sources for this assertion. While there certainly were French Canadians involved at different outposts and participating in the government regulated fur trade, I am not aware of any numbers of young men tramping around trapping beaver with the Inidans, or them coming east to participate in the war. But again, if you have actual first person sources I would be very interested in reading about them.

"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."

Your really want me to respond to a TV script? Really? :-)

"Monongahela 1754-55 by Osprey(Rene Chartrand)page 64-65."

Didn't I already address this rather underwhelming Osprey book? The one that Fort Necessity declines to sell because of its problems? :-)

"O'Meara describes Dumas rallying the natives and militia,"

But it does not say he did that successfully. No doubt not all the militia ran, but how much stayed is an unknown, and again, they were militia, not coureur des bois.

"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. "

Is this from the TV script? Interesting ascertion, and I wonder where it comes from?

"I have come to the opinion that not all the militia ran away,but some most definitely did,"

A reasonable assumption. But again, they were militia, not coureur des bois.

"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."

I am not aware of Dumas' account being questioned on the story of the militia so much as his role in the victory. He was French Canadian, so him denigrating his fellow countrymen, especially to a French Canadian governor, is not believable unless he really was disappointed in their behavior. The failure of the militia at Quebec – which was their home area – speaks for itself.

Look guys, it is a wargame, populate your armies as you wish, but so far no one has really offered any further first person accounts on coureur des bois – or the participation of militia on raiding parties. Most large raiding parties that I am aware of were either all Indians, or led (more or less) by French Canadian officers – who usually held commission in the French Marines. These raiding parties usually broke up into smaller units, and most did not even have whitemen with them.

So here is my challenge to end this once and for all – can someone come up with a first person account on the success of French Canadian militia, or that militia or coureur des bois went on raiding parties in PA or VA? Not some author's statement, but a first person account?

"…can someone come up with a first person account on the success of French Canadian militia, or that militia or coureur des bois went on raiding parties in PA or VA?"

You have probably narrowed the definition enough here to make your case. The French militia who fought at La Belle Famille don't count, because Fort Niagara is in modern New York state. The French militia who fought in the Fox War around Detroit don't count, it's the wrong war.

Okey dokey. You win.

"Can someone come up with a first person account…. that militia or coureur des bois went on raiding parties in PA or VA?"

This challenge is impossible to refute without access to French archives, which would entail learning French and travelling to France (unless there are records somewhere in Canada). Gary Zaboly (see below) says there are only a "handful" of first-person accounts of the raids of Rogers' Rangers. Their are far less records of French irregulars.

There is, however, a plethora of accounts of the existence of and the military prowess of the men we call coureur des bois. One of the few FIW books I own, and thus have close to hand, is Gary Zaboly's definitive and essential "A True Ranger: The Life and Many Wars of Major Robert Rogers." Some quotes:

"In the spring of 1746….war bands….marauded far and wide---along the Mohawk River, the Hudson, the Connecticut, the Merrimack and the Penobscot. Their compositions varied: sometimes large fusions of French marines, Canadian militia and Indians; at other times mostly small parties of Indians, some of them led by white officers or by a few of the vigorous breed of hunter/traders called coureurs des bois."

Writing about an August 1758 encounter in the wilderness between Forts William Henry and Carillon, Zaboly notes "Captain Joseph Marin's raiding party of 219 Indians and 225 troops de la Marine, Canadian militia, and coureurs des bois" ambushed Roger's force of about 535 British Provincials, Rangers, and Regulars. His source for the composition of the French Force is "Adventure in the Wilderness" by Louis Antoine de Bougainville, aide-de-camp to the Marquis de Montcalm. Bouganville, although stationed at Ft. Carillon at the time, wasn't a member of the raiding party, so I guess this evidence doesn't count, since it's not a "first-person account."

Captain Israel Putnam, captured at the onset of the above encounter and bound to a tree, had numerous close calls with death, and after being tormented by an Indian, along "came a coureur des bois officer, who snapped his fusil at the prisoner [Putnam] only to have it misfire. The Canadian then ‘violently and repeatedly pushed the muzzle of his gun against Putnam's ribs, and finally gave him a cruel blow on the jaw with the butt of his piece.'" The source of the incident and the quote within the quote is David Humphreys' "An Essay on the Life of the Honourable Major General Israel Putnam" written in 1788 while Putnam was still alive. I know, I know: not first-person, so it doesn't count.

Another book I own is Allan Eckert's "Wilderness Empire." Eckert doesn't list "coureurs des bois" in his index, so I was lucky just flipping through some pages to find this account: After the surrender of Fort Oswego, "Rigaud's [François-Pierre de Rigaud de Vaudreuil] Indians and coureurs des bois burst in and began a murderous attack with tomahawks and knives" on their British prisoners.

Give me some time and I can get you a lot more quotes like these. But there just aren't any first-person accounts of individual raids on settlers.

Here's what we know to be true: During the 17th and 18th Century, thousands of adventuresome Frenchmen travelled to the pays d'en haut (Great Lakes region) to trade with the Indians for furs. They became hardened outdoorsmen, and were excellent wilderness warriors. Those that carried out the trade without government licensing we call coureurs des bois; those who obtained licenses we call voyageurs. They lived for months at a time with the Indians; many had Indian wives. Their offspring were the metis, who often carried on the fur trade. There is no doubt that many of these fur traders participated in the fight for New France, whether as scouts, militia, or Marines. And there is no doubt that they at times (often, I believe) accompanied Indians in raids on settlers all across the frontier as well as ambushes on British forces. The lack of first-person accounts of individual raids doesn't mean that they didn't happen. It, in fact, defies logic that these hardened warriors did not participate in the defense of their country.

Mike O

"The French militia who fought at La Belle Famille don't count, because Fort Niagara is in modern New York state."

Sure, include NY if you like. So how well did they perform at La Belle Famille? And weren't a majority of those troops Marines and Indians (who sat on the sidelines to watch)? If you have an account of either coureur des bois, or how well French militia fought there, I'd love to read it.

But let's quote Rene Chartrand in his Ticonderoga 1758 Osrpey book:

"The total number of militiamen on active duty tended to be much smaller than the number mustered. Canadian militiamen had no pay or uniforms, but were armed and equipped by the government when on duty. The militia was subject to central senior command by regular officers and, in that sense, was much less affected by political bickering than in New England and generally far better led than American provincial troops. Many were needed at home to grow crops and keep the economy going. In 1758 some 4,000 were called out, with 2,100 in easter Canada and the rest mostley employed shipping supplies to garrisons in the Great Lakes and the west." p 25

"The French militia who fought in the Fox War around Detroit don't count, it's the wrong war."

I'm not familiar with that being a part of the F&I War, which again is the topic of discussion. A quick wiki search seems to indicate that those wars took place between 1712 and 1733 – which is 20 years out of the period we are discussing. Wiki also indicates those wars were pursued by the French Indian allies, not the French themselves.

"Sure, include NY if you like. So how well did they perform at La Belle Famille?"

Thanks for including New York. That's where all the actions oabee51 cites took place.

The French militia at La Belle Famille performed about as well as the regulars. Their commander failed to do any reconnaisance and led the entire force into an ambush, where they were shot to pieces and broken before they could properly deploy. However. The milita were there, come all the way from Illinois and Detroit, shouldering a musket in the line, right next to the regulars.

"I'm not familiar with that being a part of the F&I War, which again is the topic of discussion."

Like I said, wrong war. Although, actually, the Chickasaw War was also mentioned earlier, as another example of French frontier militia with good wilderness survival and bush warfare skills participating in active military operations. Another example would be the massacre of the Villasur expedition in 1720, somewhere west of Wichita, by 'Pawnee Picts' (probably Caddos) instigated and led by French fur traders.

'Coureur de bois' was a term originally used by French authorities to describe men who had run away from New France, with its oppressive taxes and corvee obligations, to live illegally among the Indians. These men were outlaws, not available for military service. Some coureurs were later reconciled to French law. There were also cases of some other individuals going over to the British and serving them as wilderness scouts and guides, to avoid apprehension by the French.

However. 'Coureur de bois' is a term commonly mis-used by wargamers to refer to French frontier milita, often involved in the fur trade and/or inter-married with Indians, with good wilderness survival and bush-fighting skills, who sometimes participated in military operations, especially on the frontier.

Such men existed, in small numbers, on the borders of New France, and also on the borders of the English colonies, all through the 18th century.

For that matter, most frontier militia were always farmers, until the close of the frontier. Read Abraham Lincoln's account of the militia company he captained in the Black Hawk War. Look at the Kentucky militia during the Revolution: always a step behind the Indian raiders, walking into an ambush at Blue Licks. There were never many frontiersmen like Daniel Boone or Simon Kenton, never more than a hand full.

I can't find any reference in Pouchet's memoirs regarding Coureur des Bois.

The Zaloby quotes are what he is calling them, same for Eckert.

No doubt a handful of French Canadians settled in the Detroit area, and some intermarried with the Indians. How many is most likely a handful. How many came east to fight, and how effective they were is a matter of speculation. There certainly weren't whole units of them, and at best a handful led some raids, with most/all holding commissions in the Colonial French Marines, like Marin did.

Now, like Keith, I have to get ready for Cold Wars. I will be fielding hordes of minutemen firing from behind rocks as that is how they won the war. They will be shooting at British with 100 pound packs, standing shoulder to shoulder, in redcoats that hide the blood from when the get shot. See, myths are prevelant in other periods too. :-)

"There, in 1701, the French officer Antoine de La Mothe Cadillac, along with fifty-one additional French-Canadians, founded a settlement called Fort Ponchartrain du Détroit, naming it after the comte de Pontchartrain, Minister of Marine under Louis XIV. France offered free land in order to attract families to Detroit, which grew to 800 people in 1765, the largest city between Montreal and New Orleans."

So, using logic, that means the main western fur trading outpost really couldn't field more than about 200 men as militia (assuming the actual number of people there in 1758 was less than 800, and that roughly half were women, and the remaing men included those too old and too young for service, and those exempt.) Also assuming they would never deploy their entire 200 man militia force away from their own fort as well.

I accept the fact that some Canadian Marine officers might have been referred to as coureur des bois based on their post, dress, heritage, and awkward French of the Englishmen talking about them. But to my knowledge, no one has come forth with any evidence of 1.) coureur des bois as a fighting force in the war, and 2.) the effectiveness of the Canadian militia.

Okay, back to CW stuff. :-)

Hello All,
At first when I responded to the post, I was thinking that I might be of some help with some information. I never once said that my information or sources were the absolute authority. I have tried to keep this debate as friendly and cordial as possible, but I really feel this is going in a direction that could get personal.
I have presented the first round of sources for Braddocks Defeat and I think that I tried to present the views to give you guys the most historically accurate that I have available. Please tell me if I did not list sources that presented both views of the militia at Braddocks Defeat. I left it with you guys to decide for yourself. I was ask to provide sources, so I did, now somebody wants first person accounts to prove that militia went on raiding parties and such. Sometimes good ole common sense needs to come into play to fill in the blanks. If these troops were available they would have gone with the parties. I want to ask you guys a question. If I can present a first hand account of militia being involved in a mixed party of Marines,regulars, and Indians from the N.Y. area put together to intercept a raiding party. Could we not assume that the same would have been done in any other theatre of the war?
Historygamer, you ask if you wanted me to have you respond to the TV script. Yes I do. First, this was not a Hollywood concoction. It was a documentary on the FIW and beyond for PBS. Second, there was a few very respected organizations,business', and services(NPS to name one) that backed this production. Third, the historians(Stephenson,West,Shy,Richter,Anderson, and Mayer), I would assume were being consulted on this production since they appeared on the DVD. So I would like to think that the script would have been correct for the narrator. Believe me when I say that I did not fund the production so that they could put that in about the militia. As far as the Osprey book, it may have its problems, but not all the sources and info in it is wrong.Chartrand does not paint a national pride reference about the militia. He states that some began to run away saying "save yourselfs if you can", hardly a bias opinion of the militia. When O'Meara states that Dumas was rallying the militia and natives, it does not say attempted, he did rally them. If he was not successful, who were all those people on the flanks. My next response to some of your questions follows. You issued a challenge to give a first hand account of any militia taking part in a raiding party. According to the book Tomahawk and Musket, the attack on Fort Ligonier was an attempt of a raiding force to stall the British advance on Fort Duquesne, which it did.Forbes almost called off the campaign till he found out the condition of the garrison of Fort Duquesne. The French force(Marines,natives, and militia) successfully made off with a good deal of spoils. Sorry no first hand account, just history. Next a patrol of 40-45 militia and Indians were dispatched to Fort Ligonier to observe troop movements.Even though this was not considered a raiding party it gives light to the fact that the militia did operate with Indians, and most likely participated in raids also. The is from "Memoirs of the Late War in North America Between France and Britain", by Pierre Pouchet,translated by Michael Cary, and edited by Brian Dunnigan( Mr. Dunnigan was Executive Director of the Old Fort Niagra Assocoation, and is a Fellow of the Company of Military Historians, and has authored a fine book called Siege-1759 The Campaign Against Niagra). I would think that this being a book of memoirs that Pierre got these from first hand accounts.
Historygamer you seem to have a lot to offer to this board. Other people do have usefull info to add, and even though it might not agree with your opinion or sources it needs to be respectfully looked at. I hold no grudge against you,even though you have come off a little strong at times, but you did issue an unreasonable challenge that could be reversed on you. That would be to find a first hand account saying that militia never went on raiding parties in Pa. or Va..
Now I have debated this issue too long, and it has cut in to a lot more of my time then I would like. I will continue to post on the Coureuer des bois/milice as helpful info. You guys can read it, and if it helps in any way, great. You do not have to take it as gospel,but I will attach sources where it came from.
take care,
Keith

I second what Keith says about "The War that made America"
doucmentery. A PBS production with numerous well respected
historians as consultants/guests. I submit that a book replete with citations would not carry any more authority.

It seems to me (and I am admittedly no authority on the FIW)
that it seems rather conclusive that there were no coureur
de bois units of company or larger size. However it seems likely there could have been such men in patrol strength,or mixed with Indian warbands or Can. militia.
If so, then they are suitable for FIW skirmish games and
shouldn't be categorically dismissed as fantasy or by
repeated dismissive statements such as "Its your wargame army, use whatever your like".

Jerry

Oh my goodness, this is not personal in any way. I enjoy a good discussion, but I do expect people to bring good evidence to the discussion. Nothing wrong with that. :-)

Keith, you and I have a lot in common, so please don't take this personal. And again, we have strayed a bit off topic as the original discussion was really on the coeureur des bois issue, not whether militia was present (I never really challenged that, only their effectiveness- of course they were present).

I know Brian on a first name basis. I ran the red team at his F&I event three times, and he signed his books and thanked me for my work for him and the fort. :-) Not bragging, but kinda neat. :-) I just had Don Hagist do the same for his new book, which I can't wait to read. Finishing up Ewald first though.

Oh, and having been an associate producer for a Learning Channel show on Washigton, and a TV producer for 10 years, yeah, I do question a lot of the crap that comes across as history. For instance, I just watched something recently on the Military Channel where they interviewed someone who said there were Tiger I's in a battle that such tanks were not even close to – let alone in. So forgive my skepticism if I can't see the source regarding TV scripts. :-)

And no, you cannot assume that the people interviewed were consulted on the script at all. Having been a producer, I can assure that unless they wrote the script, they had nothing to do with it. There are some really funny stories of Hollywood behind the scenes where the historians were thrown off set for insisting on the history over the movie. :-) I'll not name names.

"A PBS production with numerous well respected
historians as consultants/guests."

I'd give more credence to those interviewed than I would the script.

"I submit that a book replete with citations would not carry any more authority."

Wow. I'd have to respectfully disagree with that one. Perhaps you can show me a book that references a TV script, versus a TV script that uses a book as a reference. :-)

In the interest of disclosure, I had submitted a treatment to WQED previous to this production, addressing the same topic. They sent it down to PBS for funding, but it was rejected after a six month wait. About a year or so later they came up with this "new idea" but decided they would use some of their old cronies from Evening Magazine to produce it. While the show was okay, I found it slow and plodding, and did not break any new ground, or make for that good a television show. Subjective, I grant you, but I did not see $12 USDm worth of production value in the show.

Jerry, I'd generally agree with the rest of your statement (other than the patrol strength suggestion). I suspect it would be reasonable to find a man or two with frontier experience in the militia, say from Detroit, but not Quebec or Montreal, where most of the militia came from. Rene Chartrand said as much in the previous quote I posted.

My point on the lack of effectiveness of the militia seems to be getting lost in some of the coureur des bois angst.

"According to the book Tomahawk and Musket, the attack on Fort Ligonier was an attempt of a raiding force to stall the British advance on Fort Duquesne, which it did.Forbes almost called off the campaign till he found out the condition of the garrison of Fort Duquesne."

Well kinda, kinda not. The autumn rains seem to have played a bigger role in stalling the English, as they washed much of the Forbes Road away, making it near impossible to bring supplies forward for the final push on the fort. The French, on the other hand, were out of options. They had to send much of the garrison back to other posts (most of the Indains had already left), as they could not sustain them for the winter at Fort Duquesne. So they either had to mount an attack with what they had, and rely on the chances of war, or disperse and hope for the best. They choose the former.

Yes, they ran off some horses and cattle, but did not stampede the garrison or take the unbuilt fort. They did bottle them up for a day, but fell back in the face of the artillery fire and numbers arrayed against them. I do not think they ever really came out of the woods.

I would also readily agree that the English and colonial forces did not seem very adept at fighting in the woods either, as witnessed by how they fought at Grant's Hill, or at Ligonier, or some of the other smaller skirmishes. Interesting as Bouquet had been training them in woods formations – but there is no evidence they ever used them at all.

Hello All,
This has been a very lively and spirited debate. I must say that things looked a little shakey there, but things seemed to iron there way out. I would like to thank all for their input, and a lot of what was stated had sources to back it up. Whether we agreed with those sources, that is not the point. It showed that people are doing research, their not talking out their butts,their talking out their muzzles HUZZAH!
I will be posting more articles as time permits on the FIW. Please do chime in with anything you will have to add to the subject. In conclusion I will outline my thoughts about our posts. These are my opinions based on the sources I have read, and are not gospel or the last word.

1. There were no units of Coureur des bois or frontiersmen. These particular types would have been mixed in with the militia(milice-all able bodied men pressed into service, not matter the location) for the French, or for the British with the rangers and militia on the frontier. There is no doubt of their existance, and they were not a myth.
2. The militia were a lot better troops then what they are given credit for, and some were very good marksmen as the rangers found out at The Battle on Snowshoes. Those in the western area of Montreal and west were in constant contact with their Indian allies and learned their style of fighting. Plus some of them had some very good Marine officers with them and most likely some Marines also. These types of militia I would put right on par with the rangers, if not slightly better. When I think of Canadian militia I divide mine into two groups. Those who were around the more civilized areas of Canada such as Quebec which were the majority of farmers and shop keepers, compared to those who made their living in the west. Bougainville even made the remark of how he preferred the quality of the militia from the west. There is no doubt that some militia were used to transport supplies and such, but most were definitely there for the fighting.
3. Last I would like to sum up the fighting in Western Pa.. The French forces in this area deserve a lot credit. With less men and supplies, they held the British off for 3 years. One must remember that the troops that helped were also from the Louisiana and the western territories. The Indian allies were unreliable, that is true, but when they fought they were tough. The sad thing about this whole deal for the French in the west was support. They were victims of a corrupt government in Canada, and one that really did not care in France. Had the French supported New France the way they should things might have gotten really interesting. The French forces in the woods had no match. The Marines, militia, and Indians excelled at woodland warfare. The British had not yet caught up with them in this area, not for lack of trying and organising ranger units. Had Bouquet been given more rope, he could have really whipped a frontier fighting force together. One of his first requests was to arm as many of his men that he could with rifles, eventually over 100 rifles found their way into hands of the 60th Royal Americans.This is a unit that I feel was one of the best British units in the war. As the French had no match in the woods, the British had no match in the open. Their battlefield training and tactics were superior to the French and most of Europe. With less men(British,Hanoverian, and Hessian), they had defeated the French armies in Europe most of the time convincingly. The open battles in New France was no differant. The Battle of La Belle Famille proved the weakness of the militia and Marines. Most of the Marines and militia were the same that were at Fort Duquesne. When ordered to advance in the open in continental style formations, they were cut to pieces. That is all I have for now." Stack arms men, pile on the rails, stir up the campfire bright. No matter if the canteen fails will make a roaring night." If any of you guys are going to be at Cold Wars( I know you will be Historygamer), come see me at Loyalhanna Outpost. Would like to put some faces to the names, and if you have a face like mine,maybe the name is enough HA!HA!HA!.
take care,
Keith

60th was not an elite unit in any sense of the word. They were as green as grass in 1756 and 1757. Bouquet only had four companies with him on the Forbes campaign in 1758, with only one (perhaps re-enforced) participating in any major action at Grant's Hill. Stanwix had the rest and built Fort Stanwix in an amazing 90 days.

There is no evidence that these four companies had any rifles, though they were listed in an inventory in Philly, IIRC. If the 60th had rifles they may have been used for hunting or issued later to the light companies in 1759. The 60th, like all line units, carried the Long Land pattern musket – which is not one you'd want to carry in a parade. :-)

There were perhaps some differences of uniform between the battalions, even within the 1st where Bouquet noted he was saving blue wool for the waistcoat button holes in case he was reunited with Stanwix.

The 60th never really became anything more than a normal line unit during the war. The original idea behind the unit was overtaken by events. On the whole, it peformed well enough, though they almost shot Loudoun when he was reviewing them prior to the Louisbourg expedition. One guy had a loaded musket when he should have had blanks, and shot an aide standing next to Lord Loudoun.

The 60th's role at Grant's hill is in some question, and the company commander – Landers, offered to resign right after the battle. They lost about 32%, 35 KIA/MIA, and 3 wounded out of 108 men.

But, even being a pro-60th kind of guy, I can't really say they were any better than most other British units, and you could make a case that the Highland troops were tougher(though perhaps more poorly led).

The 60th grenadiers were not well disciplined as they charged without orders during part of the Quebec campaign, I think at Montmorency Falls. Wolfe was not pleased with them.

I will say that I think the best troops of the war were the British Lights at Quebec. In 1759 they had no equal, and proved it on the Plains. They could fight in woods, in the open, etc.

I would also say that in regards to my own beloved home area of western PA, the biggest obstacle and enemy were the mountains to overcome. Braddock performed nothing short of a miracle in 1755, and Forbes the same in 1758. Most of the troops were deployed building roads instead of training or fighting. Keeping those roads in working order was another miracle. The French did well enough, but the geography and lack of roads, and navigable rivers from east to west played an even bigger role. Once the Enlgish were able to project enough force over the mountains, and maintain it, the French were done.

Bouquet's tactics reached their peak when he marched into the Ohio country in 1764, confounding the Indians with his unique tactical formations and camps. I would speculate that those square camps were later used in the AWI period (based on references in Ewald), and were even better known during the 19th century in Asia and Africa.

>"I submit that a book replete with citations would not >carry any more authority."

>Wow. I'd have to respectfully disagree with that one. >Perhaps you can show me a book that references a TV >script, versus a TV script that uses a book as a >reference. :-)

Ouch. Have to agree with Historygamer on this one, having done the MA/PhD thing. Books with citations are the gold standard--but ANY historian needs to check and verify sources if you're going to stake your reputation on a thesis. TV programs? Not so much, certainly not based on anything I've seen in the last 10-20 years.

That's not to say all documentaries are suspect…but without knowledge of the source material used, you have to be careful. I found in more than one instance during my own research, situations where author[s] had selectively cited a primary source (thus changing the meaning 180 degrees).

" If any of you guys are going to be at Cold Wars"
It would be a pleasure to meet you Keith and to debate FIW with you, because i totally agree with yours ideas, i've surely read the same books… Alas, i live in France and you're a little too far away…
Thank you also historygamer for your interresting knowledges, even if you're sometimes too "literate" for me.

Vive La France! Vive La Roi! My French is rusty. :-)

Hello Cuachicwarrior,
The pleasure has been all mine. Anything to be able to help in anyway to add to the wargame experience and research. What you have seen in this post has been a multitude of material being brought forth. What everybody does with it, is up to them. We provided the ammo, you must shoot the gun. Historygamer and myself and others also have presented a lot of material. Sometimes where history does not provide the answer, you have to think about the situation and fill in the blanks, use some good ole common sense. If it is your opinion because nothing could be found, and nobody else can provide documented proof, run with it. Remember the old saying,"Opinions are like rear ends, everybody has one." Historygamer and myself differ on a lot of things. He has done his research, and I have done mine, and it boils down to opinions and what sources we value. He stands firm as much as I do, and until there is absolute confirmation, we won't be swayed ( the unstopable force meets the immovable object).
Some of you may think that I just favor the French, that is not true. I honestly like both sides. You see I am of Germanic/Celtic background, and I also reenacted Montgomery's 77th Highlanders. So I know about the British too. Historygamer, your French may be rusty,but so is the bayonet that goes on my Brown Bess HA!HA!HA!. Anyhow, I will post more in the future. I just received my shipment of figures for the show and the rule books. See ya at the show.
take care,
Keith

Keith, were in Dan's unit? If so, you do know me. My gorget has 60th on it. :-)

Jim

Hey, there is a "you" missing there somewhere. :-)

Keith, come join us either Friday or Saturday night in an AWI game. Love to introduce you to some people. :-)

Have fun at Cold Wars, gentlemen: I wish I could join you.

Historygamer, since you "love" Allan Eckert's books, here's some more from "Wilderness Empire:"

Describing Indian forces gathering at Ft. Carillon July 28, 1757:

"With the Indians were their officers, Canadian men, coureurs de bois; men assigned to guide and control their [the Indians'] energies as much as possible----men like Marin and Langlade…."

Eckert on Marin: "Jacques Marin was far more an example of the Canadian bush loper, the coureurs de bois, and best suited for leading Indians and fighting beside them."

Charles Michel de Langlade's father was a fur trader and his mother an Ottawa; Charles was himself a fur trader and a soldier. You will remember that when trading with Indians at Pickawillany in 1751 his goods were stolen by English traders and Unemakemi, leader of the village, refused to help him retrieve his goods. Langlade returned with a war party of Ottawas and Chippewas in 1752 and took his revenge, ripping out Unemakemi's heart and having a bite. I assume he was a legal trader, and thus a voyageur, not a coureur de bois, but other than the legality of their trading, the two types of traders were indistinguishable.

Then there's this, following the fall of Fort William Henry: "[T]he Indians and coureurs de bois poured out of the fort in a stream and swarmed toward the entrenched camp where virtually all the remaining English were now collected and busied in erecting tents for the night….The savages and bush lopers [coureurs de bois]….were soon stalking about the encampment in a highly menacing way, brandishing tomahawks or knives."

I agree (as I said earlier) that there were no "units" of coureurs de bois, but they certainly did fight in the war and surely made their presence felt. Having said that, I still see no problem with paying that extra point per man for your "Muskets and Tomahawks" French Militia "unit" to get that "Native" skill, and see nothing wrong with what the authors of the rules (French, aren't they?) call the "coureurs des bois" option. While you're at it, in the spirit of Langlade and Marin, give that Canadian officer the "coureurs des bois" trait as well.

Mike O

PS for a Shameless Plug: Keith, I'm so glad you're carrying the fine Galloping Major miniatures range here in the USA at Loyalhanna Outpost. The British Provincials and armed settlers I got from you look great, and I've never had better service. Thanks again.

Hello Historygamer(Jim),
What a small world, but not among history buffs. Yes it is I ,Pvt.Jimmie MacDonald(Keith)late of his Majesty's 77th Regiment a foot/Montgomery's Highlanders. Jim how the heck are you doing? Gentlemen, Historygamer(Jim)is one of the finest officers to represent His Majestys forces in reenactments.I have had the honor and privalege to serve with him in numerous actions.Jim also is well versed in this period and others. Even though we may disagree on opinions and sources. Jim is like me, if we do not have it in print or good sources, we will not stand by it. If you want to know something about the 60th, ask Jim, he is your man.
It is funny, while these debates were on going, at one point I thought it might be you(the Pittsburgh references),but was not sure. Anyhow, good go old boy, we may have not swayed or budged each other from our opinions,but we sure put a lot of info and sources out there. Once again, I am really glad to see the rest of you gentlemen adding to the post, well done.
I will try to make one of your events Jim, but with doing the dealer area, and having "she who rules with a frying pan" with me, it might be difficult. What times are your games? I will see you there.
take care,
Keith

Hello Mike,
Some nice references to the milice/coureur des bois. I also love the book "Wilderness Empire". It is one of my favorites. Eckhert really grasps the feel of the period. I understand he has another one out there on the AWI. Has anybody read this book?
Thank you for the shameless plug. Those who know me, know that I am an amateur historian and historical gamer. I have a pulse for what you guys like and want, because I am one of you(as a matter of fact, I started buying Lance's figures first and both my wife and I were impressed with them), now I am selling them . Each pack before it is shipped is inspected by me to make sure it is complete and free of flaws(although Lance does do a super job looking these over before he ships them).Nothing is more disheartning then opening a pack and find broken figures/miscasts or figures missing. So you guys are getting a two time inspection. That is not to say something might not slip through. Mike, I appreciate your business, and I know you love this period from conversations with you. Sorry you can't make the show.
take care,
Keith

"Eckhert really grasps the feel of the period. I understand he has another one out there on the AWI. Has anybody read this book?"

I think I've read everything Eckert published, including the juvenile The Court Martial of Daniel Boone. The Wilderness Empire series runs from the F&IW through the Black Hawk War, though the books were not published in chronological order. Sorry, I can't quote all the titles to you, or which ones in particular cover the AWI. I think The Frontiersmen is AWI in Kentucky.

Eckert is a very entertaining writer, and there's more history in his fiction than in some authors' fact. Like the late Bruce Catton, Eckert sometimes had trouble resisting the allure of a good story, even if it was unlikely, such as the alleged Tecumseh/Rebecca Galloway romance, or Blue Jacket's alleged Virginia origins. In That Dark and Bloody River, Eckert covered again much of the history from his Wilderness Empire series, using additional sources, and corrected some of his earlier errors.

Keith:

You are too kind. I'll find you in the dealer area on Friday afternoon. Hopefully we'll have some time to catch up. If you don't have time to play, hopefully you can drop by our game and meet some good folks and chat.

My forte now is AWI. We'll be doing a boat landing at Gloucester, VA in mid-October with 100 men, and perhaps a gun. I think that will be third boat landing I have had the honor to command. Last one, at the same site, we flipped the attacking French and pinned them to the shore we had just landed from. Don't ask me how, but we did it. :-) Great fun.

Oh, and IIRC, some years ago Keith built a model of Fort Duquese that I believe has shown up in hobby magazines. Just beautiful. :-)

I'll look forward to seeing you then my friend.

See you soon.

Jim

My pleasure, Keith. I'll try to make it to Cold Wars next year.

I cruised over to Eckert's web page and copied this list and descriptions of his works. I don't think any are out of print, and are certainly available at most libraries directly or through inter-library loan. They are each major works: my copy of Wilderness Empire runs over 600 pages of text and over 20 pages of small-print footnotes. One endearing thing about Eckert is that he often identifies the modern location of the events he writes about. The index is limited to people and place names, not subjects (like coureurs de bois!). Unfortunately there is no separate bibliography: his sources must be culled from his footnotes.

The Frontiersmen 1967
A narrative history of the opening of Kentucky and the great Northwest Territory -- Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and part of Minnesota -- during the period 1755 to 1836, through events of the French and Indian War, the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. It tells of the white man's push into the Kentucky territory detailing the Indian wars that erupted on the frontier and following, in particular, the lives of such frontier notables as Simon Kenton, Tecumseh, Chief Logan, Daniel Boone, Benjamin Logan, Little Turtle, William Henry Harrison and many others.

Blue Jacket: War Chief of the Shawnee 1968
Biography of Marmaduke "Duke" van Swearingen, who was captured and adopted by the Shawnee and became known as Wehyehpihehrsehnwah -- Blue Jacket, one of the greatest war leaders of that tribe.

Wilderness Empire 1968
Tells the story of the French and Indian War and its effect upon the American frontier in the Mohawk Valley and other regions in New York, in the wilds of Pennsylvania and in the St. Lawrence Valley, following in particular the lives, careers and adventures of such characters as Sir William Johnson, who is adopted into the Mohawk tribe and becomes a sort of liaison between the Indians -- particularly the tribes of the Iroquois League -- and the whites in this turbulent period. The scope of the book runs from the early 1700's to 1760.

The Conquerors 1970
Chronicles the movement of the British into the great Northwest after ousting the French in the French and Indian War. Hatred of the British commander, Sir Jeffrey Amherst, for the Indians and his harsh and unfair treatment of them caused anger to rise among the tribes to the point that a confederation of tribes was formed under the leadership of Chief Pontiac of the Ottawas. In spring of 1763, in a synchronized movement, war parties of Indians struck simultaneously at every northwestern fort occupied by the British and they captured them all except one, Detroit. Story of Pontiac's War.

The Wilderness War 1978
Occurring in 1779, this narrative history chronicles the day-by day, step-by-step march of the United States Army under Major General John Sullivan to destroy the Iroquois Indians, as ordered by Commander-in-Chief George Washington.

Gateway to Empire 1982
The theater of action is primarily the area of western Indiana, Illinois and southern Wisconsin, as the whites move into this region and take it from its native inhabitants, the Potawatomies, Sacs, Foxes, Winnebagoes, Miamis and Ottawas. The roles of the fur traders and frontier trading post operators such as William Burnett and John Kinsey are seen and the seeds of a new city are planted at the head of Lake Michigan -- a city to be called Chicago. A sweeping saga carrying through the War of 1812 and the great Fort Dearborn Massacre at Chicago.

Twilight of Empire 1988
Chronicles the rise of the Sac chieftain named Makataimeshekiakiak, better known as Black Hawk, who tried to resist being displaced by the encroaching Americans in the area of northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin. He rallied the Winnebagoes, Menominees, Chippewas and Mandans to make a stand with him against the Americans but they are driven across the Mississippi. When they return for their crops in northwestern Illinois, it is taken by the whites as an invasion and an army is assembled under General Edward Atkinson -- in whose companies are such men as Zachery Taylor, Abraham Lincoln and other notables. The Black Hawk War results.

A Sorrow in Our Heart: The Life of Tecumseh 1992
This definitive biography of one of the most charismatic, courageous and intelligent Indian leaders ever, traces the life of Tecumseh and the culture and traditions of the Shawnee tribe from his birth in 1768 near the village of Chalahgawtha (vicinity of present Xenia, Ohio) to his death in the Battle of the Thames in Ontario in 1813, during the War of 1812.

That Dark and Bloody River: Chronicles of the Ohio River Valley 1995
Traces the struggle for control of the great Ohio River valley from the first known human occupancy, about 700 a.d. to the advent of steamships on that stream about 1800. It centers most specifically, however, in the Indian Wars that raged throughout the Ohio River drainage -- western Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. It shows the movement of the encroaching whites into Indian territory and the efforts of the Indians to halt them and force them back. Rich with anecdotal material, among the incidents covered is the massacre of the family of the Mingo (Cayuga) chief, Talgayeeta -- Logan -- by ruffian frontiersmen and the brutal retaliation that followed; the formation of the Ohio River border patrol of Rangers headed by Samuel Brady and their amazing exploits; the remarkable -- and often remarkably vicious -- exploits of the Indian-fighting Wetzel brothers, Lewis, Jacob, John and Martin; the invasion of the Ohio country by a force under Colonel David Williamson and the massacre they committed upon innocent Moravian Indians at Gnadenhutten; the follow-up invasion led by Colonel William Crawford against the Indians -- largely Wyandots -- and the victory of the Indians over them at the Battle of Sandusky, resulting in Colonel Crawford being burned at the stake.

Hello Jim,
I wish I could take credit for that fort, but it was built by Ed at Wargames and I purchased it from him. I was very sad indeed the day I had to part with that. Our plant had closed down and I needed the extra cash and I sold that and all my highland equipment. That was like 22 years ago. Wow how time flies. I will see you at the show Jim.
take care,
Keith

Hello Mike,
Thanks for the list. I found the book in your listing, "That Dark and Bloody River". This is the book I was talking about. Thank you for the help, much appreciated. Yes, make sure you try to make one of the shows. Myself, I prefer Cold Wars or Fall-In.
take care,
Keith

>Gentlemen, Historygamer(Jim)is one of the finest officers >to represent His Majestys forces in reenactments.I have >had the honor and privalege to serve with him in numerous >actions.Jim also is well versed in this period and others. >Even though we may disagree on opinions and sources. Jim >is like me, if we do not have it in print or good sources, >we will not stand by it. If you want to know something >about the 60th, ask Jim, he is your man.

He commands a pretty good Marine landing party, too!