"First sculpt of French Marines from Galloping M for review." Topic

Hello All,
Lance has completed the first sculpt of the Compagnies Franche de la Marine. Click on the link below to see the pictures. Some more targets for the Brits, and some more French to lift scalps from those English dogs.
take care,
Keith
link

Well, they were NOT "Marines" as we understand the term today.
I translate "Compagnie Franche de la Marine" as "Frei Korps under the jurisdiction of the Overseas Ministry".
The only time they saw a ship was when they were shipped over to New France. Then, they became an irregular force that somehow became proficient at wilderness warfare.
And all the officers were native colonists.

somehow became proficient at wilderness warfare.

By being left in the wilderness for months on end I guess

Hello John,
You are right about the misuse of the term as we know Marines today. Plus these troops were never raised to serve aboard ships. None the less, the term Compagnies Franches de la Marine is a correct term to use. They were troops raised (1669) to serve overseas. These troops were paid by and fell under the jurisdiction of the Ministere de la Marine. Hence the title Compagnies Franches de la Marine.
take care,
Keith

Fine. Just do not call them "Marines".

That's a sweet French Marine!

Unfortunately John you can't undo what history has given us. You will have to blame the French for the problem. The reference as French Marines will stick like dung on the bottom of your boot. Andrew Gallup and Donald Shaffer wrote an excellent book on the Compagnies Franches, and guess what the title was? Yep you guessed it, "La Marine, The French Colonial Soldier in Canada". They list all the titles that they were given as follows: Canadian Regulars, companies of La Marine Regiment, colony troops, colonial troops, Compagnies Detachees de la Marine, Compagnies Francaises, or simply Marines. So thanks to them being attached to the Ministry of the Marine, we have the French Marines. In conclusion my suggestion is pick one of the above and run with it. By the way, nice bit of humor there Crossover.
take care,
Keith

Glad you liked it, I'm one of the Galloping Major's biggest fan boys so I've been waiting for these lads for quite a while.

Also, I wanted to join in the fun :) I knew OFM was joking because surely no rational person would have such an amero-centric view that they would honestly try to fudge history to suite a modern American meaning of a foreign translation of a word from the 18th century.

Hello Crossover,
Glad you like the figures. Like you, I can't wait to flesh out my French force with these MARINES HA!HA!HA! I have read a lot of John's posts in the past and know he has a great sense of humor. He definitely keeps life interesting. Keep up the good work John.
take care,
Keith

Nice sculpts.

Regarding the "Compagnies Franches de la Marine" I agree that those who were posted in New France (Canada) in the 18th century did not see a ship again. But at first these troops were raised to serve on ships, and to guard harbours in France. King Louis XIV 1690 Ordonnance tells that "His Majesty wants the soldiers to practice, when they will be at sea, everything related to the ship's service". It is what they did in the late 17th and early 18th century (War of the League of Augsburg and WoSS).

There probably is a confusion with another confusion :) which happened since the the late 19th century; when the Infanterie and Artillerie "de Marine" (or early 20th century "Coloniale") really had nothing to do with the Navy (although they still claim now some inheritance from the Compagnies Franches).

I will call them targets just because ….

Hello Patrice,
Some sources like " The French Soldier In Colonial America' by Rene Chartrand, state on page 9 that these troops(Compagnies Franches)were distinct from the marines serving on ships. They were exclusively raised for service in the colonies and other French territories in America.
take care,
Keith

Still just targets

Hello Royal Marine,
I am sure that is what the French Marines thought at Fort Necessity, Braddocks Defeat, Battle on Snowshoes, Grants Defeat, Fort Ligonier, and numerous other engagements. These guys were pretty good in their element which was woods fighting. I am really not partial to either side, but you have to give credit where credit is due.
take care,
Keith

Keith, is there any word on when the set will be finished and available for purchase?

Hello Joe,
I really do not have a time frame from Lance yet. He might chime in and give some kind of guess. Just remember, this was the first sculpt, and there are going to be at least 18 figures for the release. So everything is going to depend on what Lance's time frame is. Thanks for asking Joe.
take care,
Keith

Hi Loyalhanna. I certainly won't argue vs René Chartrand :)
…or, vs the English translation of his text, in page 9 of his book (which I have). But it's still unclear for me.

Anyway I agree that the French (or local-born French-speaking) "Marine" guys who were fighting in New France/Canada in the mid-18th century probably had never seen a ship, or just for the travel. But they probably still felt "Marines" in their inner self?

That's French bureaucracy and traditions.

I've done one year compulsory service (when it was still compulsory in France) many years ago, most of it in an "Artillerie de Marine" regiment …in barracks and fields 30 kms of Paris… of course there was never any ship involved but I still have my beret with the brass small anchor on it :)

Hello Patrice,
First let me say I salute you on your service to your country. The mix up is in the fact that they were troops raised for the Ministry of the Marine. From that point on they have been thought of as Marines. There was a separate regiment that was specifically Marines during the SYW. I would not say that some of the Compagnies Franches never saw ship duty, because even normal army units had men serve on ships because of the lack of Marines. This practice continued into the AWI with French Marines serving at Yorktown( which were army units serving as Marines on ships). So you are right, things could be very confusing based on descriptions.
take care,
Keith

Hello All, These new sculpts can also be viewed on Galloping Major Facebook page.
take care,
Keith

Nice sculpts but the muskets look awfully long to me. With the Bayonet they look much longer than the soldier holding them. I don't know, are the muskets suppose to be that out of proportion to the soldier? I guess they are in proportion, it is just when they are at shoulder arms the muskets look like flag poles.

Rallynow,

The 1728 musket commonly used in Canada had a 46 and 3/4 inch barrel or so. I couldn't find a description of total musket length. If you add another 10-12 inches for the butt that gives a musket almost 5 feet long. I have a fowler and a fusil de chasse with 42 inch barrels and I'm 5'7" tall and those are quite long as well. I suppose most of the French soldiers were in the 5' to 5'6" range, so to me the muskets don't look too long.

v/r

Joe

Hello Rallynow,
The French Marine's musket is in proportion to the figure. If you take the stats from what Joe gave(thank you Joe). A fusil de chasse would be about 54 inches long. Given that the average French soldier might have been 66 inches tall. That would place the muzzle of the musket at about shoulder height . So now take a ruler(like I did) and measure the length of the musket in the picture. Now take that length and measure up from the bottom of the feet. The muzzle ends up being shoulder height. By the way the Marine sculpt has no bayonet on the musket. I think you are looking at the sculpts from Crann Tara.
take care,
Keith

The fusil M 1728 was about 159 cm long – which is about 62 inches – so it should get way above the shoulder of the French soldier – the Fusil M 1728 had 3 rings, the fusils de Tulle – only two rings, but seem to be also very long.

The muskets looks too short for me and out of proportion – very long butt and neck stock compared to length of barrel.

If they did not go through Paris Island or San Diego than they are not Marines.(the one exception of course being the Royal Marines).

My dad took his boot training at Parris Island , most commonly referred to by most Marines as PI. That Paris Island you referenced above must have been where the French Marines did their training.
take care,
Keith

The musket that Lance put on the sculpt of the French Marine figure looks to be a M1734 grenadier fusil. This musket had one barrel band which a sling was attached to. The barrel was held in place by pins and the length overall was 60 1/4", The length of the butt was 15 1/2 ", was 5 3/4" wide, and 2" thick. When I measured my forearm and hand in the position that the sculpt is posed, it pretty much fell right in with the sculpt, and I do not have long arms. This is a crude test to say the least, but I would like to see the cast figure first, because you have to allow for shrinkage. The figure you see is the sculpt, it will go through 2 more shrinkages. Another thing to remember is that there were more than just 2 types of muskets that were available to the marines. There is also an account of Rogers Rangers capturing a French marine sergeant in 1757 that was armed with a double-barreled fuzee (page 91 of La Marine). So some were even armed with civilian type firearms.
take care,
Keith

@Loyalhanna

I would be very much interested to learn more about the M 1734 Grenadier fusil (there I never read anything about it)
Can you point out some references where I can read more about this fusil?

Michel Petard : L'Homme de 1751 – Les compagnies franches de la Marine, Uniformes Nr. 34, 1976, points to a modell 1734 which was attributed to the CF de la Marine, which had no rings.

I agree that the CF de la Marine would carry more than two types of muskets.

Hello von Winterfeldt,
I would strongly recommend the book "La Marine – The French Colonial Soldier in Canada". It has a lot of info on equipment, uniforms, and firearms. It has a good read on the 1734 grenadier fusil and illustrations. Also below are some internet sites you may find useful.
take care,
Keith
link
link

Thanks for the links and the book recommendation

Hello von Winterfeldt,
No problem. I am more then glad to share any info I have ,and hope that others would do likewise. Believe me when I say this, that I will not give out information that I do not have sources on. Some may not agree with the sources , but at least they are sources. Sometimes I might give an opinion, which I will let anybody know up front that that is what it is. Sometimes good ole common sense has to come into play. Example, the French would not carry a Brown Bess. Wrong!!!!!!!!!! If I am a Frenchman and my musket goes south or is stolen or lost, and I find a Bess, I am going to use the darn thing. "Kill or be killed" I say. Yet some will say there is no documentation. Good ole common sense. Glad I could be of some help.
take care,
Keith

There is an excellent article by Rene Chartrand in the latest issue of the Military Collector & Historian (v.66,#2)(Journal of the Company of Military Historians)titled Officers' Regulation Uniforms, Compagnies franches de la Marine, New France 1668-1763. Lots of color.

I take this opportunity to solicit members to the Company of Military Historians, continuously publishing the finest research and color prints for 66 years.

Thank you Ken for adding that info. I have always enjoyed reading your articles, which goes back to the old Courier days. I was glad that you stopped at our booth(Loyalhanna Outpost) this past show. We will be adding more figures to the Crann Tara range also.
take care,
Keith

Loyalhanna,

would go along with most of what has been said, even if I would not agree with it all, but hey, that is why we have opinions. Where I do think an inaccuracy creeps in is in your post of 24th June. It is fortunate indeed that the book was not entitled "Companies of La Marine Regiment" or whatever, as that is something completely different. The infantry regiment "la Marine" was even further removed from the sea at this stage than even these wandering Compagnies Franches…

Regards

C

Great sculpts though….

Hello Chokidar ,
I really do not see an inaccuracy in the post. Most of the info posted in those posts come from sources. I do not think that I indicated anywhere that the Marine Regiment was assigned to ships. Here is my post to Patrice from the 25th:
Hello Patrice,
First let me say I salute you on your service to your country. The mix up is in the fact that they were troops raised for the Ministry of the Marine. From that point on they have been thought of as Marines. There was a separate regiment that was specifically Marines during the SYW. I would not say that some of the Compagnies Franches never saw ship duty, because even normal army units had men serve on ships because of the lack of Marines. This practice continued into the AWI with French Marines serving at Yorktown( which were army units serving as Marines on ships). So you are right, things could be very confusing based on descriptions.
take care,
Keith
Maybe someone who has more info on the SYW European theatre can comment about the marines serving on board for the French. The marines had to come from somewhere. I know for a fact that the practice in the AWI was that infantry regiments supplied detachments for shipboard duty. Yorktown is well documented with what detachments were on board what ships. I would think that this practice was in effect in the SYW also. Thank you for the comments and liking the figure of the French marine.
take care,
Keith

Keith,

I was referring to this passage in an earlier post

Unfortunately John you can't undo what history has given us. You will have to blame the French for the problem. The reference as French Marines will stick like dung on the bottom of your boot. Andrew Gallup and Donald Shaffer wrote an excellent book on the Compagnies Franches, and guess what the title was? Yep you guessed it, "La Marine, The French Colonial Soldier in Canada". They list all the titles that they were given as follows: Canadian Regulars, companies of La Marine Regiment, colony troops, colonial troops, Compagnies Detachees de la Marine, Compagnies Francaises, or simply Marines. So thanks to them being attached to the Ministry of the Marine, we have the French Marines. In conclusion my suggestion is pick one of the above and run with it…. " and the reference to companies of the Marine Regiment.

The Regiment La Marine was one of the 6 Vieux Corps (it became so as a slight of hand under Mazarin, but even previously had been ranked 16th in the regular French infantry.) As such it had absolutely nothing to do with the Compagnies Franches or with the Ministry of the Marine. I was merely pointing out the existence of la Marine regiment which has absolutely nothing to do with any discussion about the Compagnies Franches and therefore would have been a singularly inappropriate title.

That was all I was trying to get at.

Kind regards

C.

Hello Chokidar,
You are correct that the reference to companies of La Marine Regiment should not be used. This was just a point being made by the author of what titles that the French Marines have been referenced by.
take care,
Keith