"Why did musician wear reversed colors?" Topic

The books I referenced are seminal works (on the British Army) on the period (1755 to 1783)and these topics are addressed in there. Wolfe's Instructions speaks for itself. I would strongly suggest that if you are interested in the periods of 1755 to 1781 of the British Army in North America, that you'll enjoy them. They dispell a lot of myths – like musicians were used to signal the troops in battle.

Maybe in camp or garrison, but certainly not on the battlefield. Given the conditions the British were fighting in, the noise, their pace, etc, it was just not very practical. Again, read Wolfe, Houlding, Spring. I'll have to re-check Brumwell, but most likely there too.

I do not doubt some musicians went into battle. I would agree with that. But it has been ascerted here that they were used to carry messages (I can see a cavalry musician doing that, not a foot musician), and that they were targeted. I have asked for documentation of such ascertions and haven't gotten any yet.

I am fairly well read on the Britsh army of the F&I and Rev War, can't comment on others. Not my area of knowledge.

My suggestion would be that episodes like the Stabstrompeter finishing his Major's job, or some drum major laying about him with his mace, were documented precisely because they were the exception, and actually not supposed to happen. Interestingly too, they mostly seem to date from the Napoleonic Wars, when things got a lot more ideologically charged than in the previous century.

Obviously, in the blind volley firing of both periods, drummers and trumpeters would be at risk like anybody else, but when it came to close combat, they would hold back – their place being behind the ranks actually, to aid in rallying afterwards. (Sorry GdeP!)

And no, you didn't snipe at drummers – if American riflemen actually did that in the War of Independence, could it (at least in part) explain why British officers and soldiers would be disinclined to treat them as lawful combatants?

Bandsmen were another class altogether, civilian professionals until fairly late in the period, thus not required to put themselves in harm's way, and on battle day more helpful as medical orderlies. Incidentally, I understand that's still how they cross-train in some modern armies.

Since this thread runs on the 18th through 19th C. boards, obviously we're trying to hit a moving target here. The customs of war evolved considerably over the period in question, and the role and status of drummers and trumpeters is but one tiny aspect of that: from latter-day heralds in 1700 to combat signalmen in 1900…

Historygamer, if your message had a great distance to go and you had a trumpeter to hand, fine. In other cases, a drummer would do, or have to do. There was a special drum call to signal you wanted to parlay – in siege situations, but also in the field, whether to discuss terms of surrender or just a temporary ceasefire to pick up the wounded. The call is named "chamade" in French (from Italian "chiamare", to call out); unfortunately I don't know its English name, though I'm sure it must have been in British drummers' repertoires as well.

in the Napoleonic time cavalry trumpeters were combatants, usually only the staff trumpeter would sound tactical signals during a combat, the other trumpeter would ride into battle with drawn side arm and trumpet slung over the shoulder.

Musketier made a good point about "chamade" – for this signal usually a trumpeter or drummer was used, most likley because the enemy could recognize them easier and seemingly this kind of signal was understood by a lot of armies.

Claiming that, since drummers were not used as signalers by the British in the North American theater they are not used in European battlefields is akin to claim that, since their was no cavalry action during the FIW cavalry was not used in Europe during the WAS and SYW.

Musicians (playing oboe, clarinet, jingling johnny…) were indeed used to evacuate wounded (in France it was officially regulated under Napoleon at the very last) drummers were battlefield signalers (just like trumpeters for the cavalry): when French voltigeurs light companies were to have 2 hornists instead of 2 drummers their captains kept 1 drummer and had a single hornist, fearing that a blown out hornist would not sound the signals loud enough.

This proved groundless and in French infantry clairons progressively replaced drums (which were moved to the non-fighting band) for battlefield signals. Clairons were still used for battlefield signals during the early months of mobile warfare of WWI. Later they were used (bagpipe fashion?) only to stir men during assaults: they were still used in that role by the Viet Minh at Na san in fall 1952.

As for the original question, drummers (& trumpeters) reversed coats (or colorful livery) answered the need of visibility, both for the 'glamor' and to provide a visual rallying point.

Page 9 of this document on British Napoleonic military drumming mentions the chamade: link

The document also says that much is still not known about the work of drummers in the British army of the Napoleonic period and that the 18th century is better documented.

There's also this: PDF link

And to hear some British Napoleonic calls, try this: YouTube link (The side links have a variety of other recordings of drumming of different periods.)

There's nothing in all this to address the question of reversed clothing but this material does provide some background on drummers and drumming in the British army and so may be of interest. The material certainly does strongly suggest widespread use of the drum both on and off the battlefield in the Napoleonic period.

Cheers,

David
nba-sywtemplates.blogspot.co.uk

[P.S. Tango previously mentioned at least one of these documents here on TMP: TMP link ]

'The books I referenced are seminal works (on the British Army) on the period (1755 to 1783)and these topics are addressed in there. Wolfe's Instructions speaks for itself. I would strongly suggest that if you are interested in the periods of 1755 to 1781 of the British Army in North America, that you'll enjoy them. They dispell a lot of myths – like musicians were used to signal the troops in battle.'

Citations and/or page numbers please?

B

'I have asked for documentation of such ascertions and haven't gotten any yet.'

See John Elting's Swords Around a Throne Chapter XVII (Trumpets, Drums and Cuckoos) for drummers, fifers and trumpeters (soldiers) and bandsmen (hired civilians-gagistes) and how they differed and how the drummer and trumpeters were employed in combat.

Further, if you're interested, see Les Campagnes d'un Musicien d'Etat-Major Pendant la Republique et l'Empire, 1791-1810 by Philippe-Rene Girault who was a gagiste and possilble Memoires d'un Vieux Deserteur by J. Steininger, who was a drummer.

B

Apologies. I had no idea this thread was also on the 19th century board. My references are all 18th century, all English, and all specific to Rev War and AWI.

I have no idea what was and wasn't done in the 19th century British army.

For people asking for a specific reference, sorry I don't have time to go looking for that right now, too busy. But I have provided seminal works on the period as reference.

The Elting reference is Napoleonic, out of my period of interest or knowledge. Hazard of the original poster cross posting. The periods he posted too are too broad and too different for a one size fits all answer.

My request for specific citations were first person – as in, someone from the period writing them. The books I referenced are heavily footnoted and reference period writings.

Musketier:

I understand what you are saying, but the drummers were not used that way. Look what happened at Yorktown when the British drummer tried (key word there) to beat a parley in the middle of a battle. An officer had to mount the works with white rag in hand to signal to the allies.

While I am not a Napoleonic expert, but I would hazard to wonder how, if on the smaller engagements in N America drummers could not be heard in battle, how they would in the much larger Napoleonic ones?

I should modify that statement – drummers were not used that way in North America. There. Fixed it. :-)

So, would it be fair to say that once Americans got involved, traditional laws and customs of war no longer applied?

'I should modify that statement – drummers were not used that way in North America.'

Looking up the sections in both Houlding's and Spring's books, while there is evidence that drummers were not employed in communicating on the battlefield usually, the sections also leave it open that they might have been.

So, both authors tend to lean to the idea that they were not, but they don't appear to be positive that drummers were not used to communicate on the battlefield at all.

B

'While I am not a Napoleonic expert, but I would hazard to wonder how, if on the smaller engagements in N America drummers could not be heard in battle, how they would in the much larger Napoleonic ones?'

If you're interested in answering that question, I would at least get hold of Col Elting's Swords and find out.

In the Grande Armee, 'There were two principal classes of French military music: the 'field music' (grande batterie) and the band (la musique). The first were definitely combat soldiers who accompanied their regiments at all times and under all conditions; the second might have a more ceremonial role.'-336

'The field music consisted of the regimental drum major (tambour-major), his assistant, the drum corporal (tambour-ma๎tre), and all the regiment's drummers, two in each company. The drum major was a man of weight and consequence, a member of the regimental staff, ranking in lonely state somewhere among the senior NCOs and junior officers, yet in himself unique. Traditionally tall, elegant, and fearless, he was expected to set a personal example of military bearing and exemplary conduct. Assisted by his drum corporal, he trained the regiment's drummers-no small responsibility, since it took approximately five years to produce a drummer capable of beating all the different signals (batteries) correctly, day or night, under the stress of combat, and some ten years to produce a real expert. Replacements had to be constantly under instruction to replace casualties.'-336

'Drums were more than musical instruments: They were the voice of the regiment, beating the signals that regulated its daily life, tightening its ranks on weary marches, pounding out the colonel's orders across the crash of battle. They were its communications system: Relayed drum signals could carry the length and front of a division faster than a horse could gallop. Just as the modern company commander relies in his radio operator, his Napoleonic counterpart depended on his drummers. (For that reason the 'brave little drummer boy' of tradition was not much use on a nineteenth century battlefield. Drums were heavy, unhandy instruments; it took a sturdy soldier to carry his pack and a drum and still keep at the heels of a more lightly accoutered officer.)'-336-337.

The French had a definite delineation between drummers and trumpeters who were combat soldiers and the hired musicians, or gagistes, who were not.

B

Apparently the Continental Army did not share the expressed British viewpoint on drummers in the field:

'Companies included a drummer, and in most cases, a fifer as well. Unlike modern musicians, these individuals, who commonly massed behind the regiment during a battle, were concerned with signaling rather than with morale. The eighteenth-century drum produced a sound that could carry several miles, and in groups its pounding was audible over the din of combat…In 1776 fife and drum majors were added to the regimental staff as performing musicians responsible for instructing the fifers and drummers.'-Robert Wright, The Continental Army, 38.

'Music was a necessity for any army of the eighteenth century, and the Continental Line was no exception. Not only did music boost morale, it also assisted marching in cadence, contributed to the pomp of ceremonies and, in the case of the 'Rogue's March,' increased the psychological factor in punishment. Most important of all, however, it offered the means of signaling and conveying orders more effectively than the human voice. The principal instruments for these purposes were the fife and drum…'
Harold Peterson, The Book of the Continental Soldier, 189-190

The West Point Band, which is the oldest military band in the United States has in its ranks an excellent drum and bugle section known as 'The Hellcats.' They don't use the usual side drum associated with military bands, but four of the older, deeper ones which have a deep, rich and resonant tone that can be heard above and beyond loud noises, such as a crowd at a football game. The difference between those excellent instruments and the usual side drums is both amazing and profound. I heard them again just last Saturday both at parade and a football game.

B

Might we be talking past each other here? I don't think anybody doubts that drummers, fifers, and cavalry trumpeters were soldiers and went into battle with their units, from the Landsknechts to the opening moves of WWI and beyond.

The point I was trying to make was that while certainly "in the line of fire", they were, for much of the 18th C at least, not expected to fight, nor to be targeted individually where that could be avoided. In this, their distinctive dress – whether colonel's livery or reversed colours – would have helped.

I'm in the middle of getting ready for an event, but a quick look through some of my books revealed nothing on when and where reverse colors started – noting of course that for the British, Royal regiment musicians did not wear reverse colors.

It is a very good question indeed, and perhaps not one easily answered (though as noted, not all British musicians wore reverse colors).

Since the British army of 1776 and beyond was using open order (open files), moving at the trail arms, and moving more quickly than a march – it would be physically impossible to play the fife or drum in such circumstances. No doubt the massed grenadier music at Brandywine started out at a slower pace, then gained speed as they broke up. That is covered in McGuire's excellent two book set on the Brandywine campaign.

I'm not saying music wasn't there. I am sure they played martial airs to keep the mens' spirits up.

To some of the interesting quotes from above:

"Companies included a drummer, and in most cases, a fifer as well. Unlike modern musicians, these individuals, who commonly massed behind the regiment during a battle, were concerned with signaling rather than with morale."

Really? Signalling who? The battalion was broken into fire elements of platoons and divisions. I am not aware of any specific musical commands during the AWI that were geared to such a level. How could you distinguish which platoon a massed music signal was being directed to? Or Division? Or for that matter, battalion? While not having been under real combat conditions of the 18th century I can assure you – having been on many recreated ones – that you cannot distinguish such signals on an 18th century battle with all the noise. And again, there were no signals to separate combat elements within a battalion. Also, the men were not well educated, so expecting them to distinguish one signal from the other in the heat of combat seems a little thin.

"The eighteenth-century drum produced a sound that could carry several miles, and in groups its pounding was audible over the din of combat…"

I was a drummer for a lot of years. I can assure you that given other noise, humidity and weather, that this was not the case. Sometimes you couldn't hear a drum 100 yards away. Miles is just poppy cock. And again, on the field of battle, are you really going to be able to distinguish one group of drums from another?

"Most important of all, however, it offered the means of signaling and conveying orders more effectively than the human voice. The principal instruments for these purposes were the fife and drum…'"

Really? How come he didn't cite a first person reference to buttress his ascertion? I've read a lot of first person accounts of the period and have yet to read anything like that regarding music used as command and control. I see a lot of authors repeat previous authors on the subject, but have yet to read that fifes or drums actually did that.

If you don't believe me, come on out this weekend and see for yourself:

battleofthehook.org

I love period music. I was a drummer for many years. But it's place on the battlefield is simply limited by physics and acoustics. There was much writing in peace time for the role music played in daily garrison and camp life, but on the battlefield, I suspect it was little more than a morale booster.

I am open to first person accounts from the period, rather skeptical of modern historians who don't have anything to back up such ascertions. Again, I have no idea after 1783. :-)

Three things:

I gave you two primary source references from the Napoleonic period on the subject.

Robert Wright, Harold Peterson, and John Elting are excellent historians for their respective periods and if you haven't read the books and seen their reference material then commenting on them, as well as being skeptical of them, is somewhat ridiculous unless you have read them.

And I'm sure you were an excellent drummer. The only problem is that you were not a drummer in either the War of the Revolution or the French Revolutionary Wars/Napoleonic Wars.

B

There is a rumour that the Scots Greys at Waterloo charged with a mounted bagpiper as the only time that British Cavalry employed such a musician. Does anyone know about possible uniform details? I've even heard that he might have worn a kilt, which might have proved uncomfortable. Not sure though what reversed colours would have looked like for 2nd North British Dragoons. Would Perrys consider such a figurine?

Cannot remember where I heard that. It might have been during my alien abduction……

Right. Playing the bag pipes while riding a horse. :-)

B – the physics of the drum are no different in this century or the 18th. You cannot run and play, or even march quickly and play. More so for the fife.

As I have said, I have no idea about the Nappy period, but of course I recognize Elting's name.

By the way, a primary source would not be Elting, Houlding, or Spring. A primary source is someone from the time period who wrote of their experiences. The ones that come to mind are Ewald, Peebles, Joseph Plumb Martin. They are primary sources. Modern authors are not.

No one has provided a primary source on this subject yet, and I can assure you there were no drum calls (fifes and pipers were just for music) for anything beyond general orders – they were not specific to a platoon, company, division – and you haven't spoken to that fact yet.

Drums might beat assembly, beat wood call, water call, meal, a preparative to fire – but they were no substitute for a commanding officers voice commands. I am in the middle of reading Hess' book on Picket's Charge, and am reading time and time again when regimental officers are giving voice commands – direct quotes – with no reference to music by any commanders. Later period, I realize, but still a musket period.

And yes, I was a very good drummer. You could buy some of the music I performed up to a few years ago at Fort Pitt Museum. I think the CDs are now on sale at the Fort Laurens gift shop. Long story that. Not playing anymore :-(

Okay, against my better judgment I did a little more research. Houlding – Fit for Service, page 279, third paragraph:

" Amherst's 1778 Regulation, recognizing these problems (using music to march to), laid it down that henceforth all infantry maneuvers were to be performed by vocal commands only, and that, 'Drums should be used as little as possible in maneuvering of Regiments & Musick (i.e. bands) never." All subsequent regulations concurred.

Amherst was Field Marshal of the British Army at the time – and his quote is indeed a primary source.

There is an interesting section on the page prior to that which references the fife just coming into use in the 1750s in the British army, and some regiments drilling to music. I'll let you read through that on your own, as you seem to have the book. By the way, I was stunned when I saw what this book was going for on ebay ($500!!!!). I got mine in the National Army Museum. Kinda neat. :-)

Some more interesting notes on use of fifes, drums, trumpets, kettle drums, and horns in the British army in the 1740s thru the 1770s found on page 422.

I'd also recommend looking at the Advanced Training in the Field chapter, which has many primary source quotes – but not a mention of music.

One more word of caution about any author – they often make mistakes. I recall picking up John Keegan's Fields of Battle: The Wars for North America (1997). I paged to the chapter on Braddock and read something about the French seeing the reflection from the British grenadier caps glinting through the forest. My jaw dropped and I immediately put the book down. Keegan was a great historian, but I have idea where he got that from. Aside from the fact the battle, by all accounts, was a classic meeting engagement – the British grenadiers weren't wearing any metal plates on their clothe mitre caps. That didn't come into fashion until the mid 1760s. Did he make that up? Did he copy that from another ill informed author? I don't know. Just saying you really have to look at multiple sources, and primary ones – when you can find them – are the best.

As Jim Kochan once said to me, any more research is going to cost you, as I don't work for free. :-)

"Bad form to shoot a non-combatant. Make sure they stand out so they aren't accidentally targeted."

I bet that surely worked when both sides were firing muskets.

Just reading Jack Gill's excellent "1809 Thunder on the Danube". On page 236 it describes the Bavarian attack on Pfeffenhausen. This says the Bavarian General Wrede "Forming the 6th Line in long thin lines above the town, he ordered the drummers and hornists to sound the charge on his signal and sent a detachment forward to seize the bridge." A couple of lines on he describes:
"Accompanied by drums, horns and shouting, the Bavarian company fell upon the bridges defenders".

Jack's sources quote the more detailed description on page 92 of his own book "With the Eagles to Glory – Napoleon and his German Allies in the 1809 Campaign". The notes to that quote a number of sources (comprising Fabrice p179-182, Heilmann p127-133, Wrede's own report in Saski vol II p289, Auvera p416-419, Hoefler p88-93, Ruith/Ball p156-159, Xylander p147-148 and Zoellner p60-61.

Since I actually have none of these latter sources I am unable to say exactly where this description, of the Bavarian attack being accompanied by drummers and hornists, originally came from. What I can say is that I consider Jack Gill to be an excellent modern military historian. As many will know he is a former US Army Colonel who has specialised in the 1809 war and the Confederation of the Rhine, taking most of his information from original German language sources. If that is what he says happened, I for one totally believe him.

I would also just comment that, as some others have mentioned, that drummers, buglers (or hornists in some armies) were not musicians, but soldiers, and their role was to transmit orders by means of their drums, bugles or horns.

Musicians were bandsmen who were far less military and in the Napoleonic era were often effectively professional civilian musicians wearing uniform.

In the British Army this distinction between drummers/buglers/pipers (part of their battalion or regiment) and bandsmen (temporarily attached to regiments from the Corps of Army Music) is maintained to this day.

Rod

‘The books I referenced are seminal works (on the British Army) on the period (1755 to 1783)and these topics are addressed in there.'

And they are secondary works, are they not?
‘I am open to first person accounts from the period, rather skeptical of modern historians who don't have anything to back up such ascertions.'

Houlding, Spring, and McGuire are all modern historians. Yet, you believe them and not the ones that I referenced. Are you stating that historians such as Wright, Peterson, and Elting are not to be believed? Have you read their books? You have dismissed them out of hand and that is not conducive to historical inquiry. Or, do you object to them because they don't agree with what you believe to be factual and accurate.

Just because there may or may not be a footnote is not an indication of being incorrect. You should check the bibliographies of the works concerned if you haven't read them, and I suspect that you have not.

And after reading Houlding and Spring, the issue is not definitive by any means.

How is advancing or operating in open order not conducive to commands by drum? The French certainly used them from 1792-1815 for command purposes including for skirmishers in open order as well as a hunting horn. Seems that it worked for them.

Of course, we may be talking apples and oranges here as the British army and the French army operated tactically quite differently and the use of drummers and trumpeters seemed to work quite well for the French in all tactical operations as a command and control method. And the Americans used the drum for communications on the battlefield according both to Wright and Peterson two of the best historians on the Continental Army.
And you might want to take into consideration that both Houlding and Spring might be incorrect. It is a possibility.

B

'As Jim Kochan once said to me, any more research is going to cost you, as I don't work for free. :-)'

Wow. What an incredibly egocentric comment.

That would depend on the value of the research offered. Seems that you have made your point conclusive, while Houlding and Spring have not.

I have never seen a comment like that from a historian when discussing a historic topic. Advice and information was always freely given as it should be on the forums.

Smiley face or not, that's quite a leap.

Anyways, to each his own.

B

Rod,

Excellent posting as usual.

Sincerely,
Kevin

The size of the battalion was such – that it could be commanded by voice, actual drum signals for manoeuvre of a closed unit – very few existed, like roulement (to stop firing) – the other commands were given by voice.

For the attack – often the step was beaten, like in the French Army the pas de charge – the command for that was given by voice, then the drummers would start to beat the rhythm.

That is what Gill describes which is in line with historygamer.

It is a different case for skirmishers where a lot of signals by drum and or bugle were in use, due to the very extended order of the skirmishing line and the place of the controlling officer.

Otherwise historygamer did already cover the topic very well, drums were used to regulate the day duties, to wake the unit, to call for food assembly, for the guard duty, to assemble and so on.

What a wonderfully circular thread. So we have established beyond reasonable doubt that:

1. Its important to differentiate between combat signallers – drummers, buglers, etc; and musicians;

2. That the combat signallers wore their distinctive dress so that they could be quickly spotted in combat conditions for the transmission of orders;

3. That musicians in livery were regarded as non combatants but did have an auxiliary role of assisting the wounded, since their instruments had no function in battle. The function of their livery was regimental pride and tradition.

Even back then, reduncancy was built into the command/communication system. Commands were given by voice to a battalion and brigade. But there are recommendations and procedures in addition to that:

*runners
*officers down the line repeating the commands.
*following the battalion's actions to the regulating side of the line, and of course
*drums and bugles.

All very important the confusion and with the noise of battle.

Drums and bugles could be heard much farther than voice commands at times.