Loyalhanna | 09 Aug 2014 1:24 p.m. PST |
Hello All, Well I finally put together the article on Canadian Militia(Milice). I also included an article on French marines on raids and scouting parties. Also their is an article on French and Indian Superiority in Woodland Warfare. There are first hand accounts to back up the information also. I would have posted them here, but they were too long. Anyhow, enjoy the read. Just click on the link below. take care, Keith link |
Dan Beattie | 09 Aug 2014 1:53 p.m. PST |
" French and Indian Superiority in Woodland Warfare." Apparently they weren't using it at the Battle of La Famille, in July 1759, near Fort Niagara. Here a force of French regulars (troupes de la Marine?), militia, and Indians was ambushed successfully by a smaller force of British regulars, Iroquois Indians, and a few militia. It was something like Braddock's defeat reversed, except that Braddock was not ambushed. Perhaps Robert Rogers and his men might disagree with you also. Thanks for the information. |
Loyalhanna | 09 Aug 2014 2:11 p.m. PST |
Hello Dan, Your right, they did not use it a La Belle Famille. They decided to come out of the woods and into the open and deploy into line. This falls right in line with what I stated in my article, they tried to go toe to toe with the British and they paid dearly. The fact that they had no native allies(they decided to set this one out), for scouts did not help. Even so they should have scouted ahead, both officers new better and had sprung ambushes on the British before. Read the article it is covered in there. As far as Rogers is concerned, he was bested by the Canadian partisan leader Ensign Langis of the Compagnie Franche de la Marine every engagement they fought including The Battle of Snowshoes. take care, Keith |
21eRegt | 09 Aug 2014 5:34 p.m. PST |
Yes, Rogers built his reputation early on by doing things the British had never done before, like coming out in winter. The rest of his reputation is thanks to movies like (the very enjoyable) Northwest Passage way back when. New programming like "Turn" is much less favorable. Thanks for sharing the link Loyalhanna, very interesting piece. |
Loyalhanna | 09 Aug 2014 5:53 p.m. PST |
No problem 21e Regt. I like researching these things. I like to have documentation before I state something. Sometimes it is not what I want to see, but the truth is there. Glad you enjoyed the read. take care, Keith |
Tom Molon | 10 Aug 2014 7:49 a.m. PST |
Good information. Thanks for posting. |
Loyalhanna | 10 Aug 2014 3:58 p.m. PST |
Hello Tom, Glad that you liked the article. I wanted to do this for a year, but just kept putting this off. Hopefully in the future I will add some more articles. There are a lot of good books out there, but still one of my favorites for first hand info is the Bouquet Papers, Vol.II, The Forbes Campaign. take care, Keith |
Rudysnelson | 10 Aug 2014 8:36 p.m. PST |
I assume you included all of the information from the Chickasaw kicking the French and their Indian Allies rumps during their wars of the era. We produced a book on the Chickasaw-French Wars of the 1700s. |
Loyalhanna | 11 Aug 2014 6:54 a.m. PST |
Hello Rudy, Thank you for the comments. The article I wrote deals with the period 1754-1763. If I am not mistaken the last effort by the French to engage the Chickasaw was in 1752, and some sources say that nothing really came about, even though the Illini continued hostilities. Also the article has to deal with the French and Indians actions against the British. The period you refer to was 1752 and prior. As far as I can tell the British really did not contribute any troops to aid the Chickasaw. I would like to get a copy of your book though. Even though it does not deal with the period covered, it sounds like a very interesting read. It could be a very good period to do some scenarios with. With your knowledge of that period you should post some scenarios for it. take care, Keith |
comte de malartic | 11 Aug 2014 11:03 a.m. PST |
With regards to Rogers Rangers-- I have heard that a group of the Rangers were ambushed by a Picquet of French Regulars from the La Reine Regiment prior to the 1759 Battle of Ticonderoga. The way I remember it, the rangers were singing while moving along a path. Am I remembering this correctly? v/r Joe |
comte de malartic | 11 Aug 2014 11:12 a.m. PST |
Loyalhanna, I liked your article on the milice and the marines. One thing to keep in mind is logistics. Canada and the Ohio territories were never self supporting--food was always in short supply--to the extent that there was serious discussion on sending some of the French Regular Troops back to Europe due to the strain that they put on the food supply. I believe that this is discussed by Pouchot. v/r Joe |
Loyalhanna | 12 Aug 2014 9:42 a.m. PST |
Hello Joe, Good to see you posting again. We missed you at Cold Wars. I ask if anybody had seen you, but no sighting. I can't remember reading anything about that particular ambush, but I have read so much that everything does not always stick in the closet. Glad you enjoyed the article. It was a long time in coming. I promised everybody on here that I would post some in depth info about the Milice . There is still some more to come. After reading how corrupt the government of New France was, it is a wonder that they provided anything to these guys. take care, Keith |
Loyalhanna | 14 Aug 2014 3:15 p.m. PST |
|
Loyalhanna | 16 Aug 2014 8:15 a.m. PST |
Hello All, Found an interesting video about western militia on You Tube. Very enlightening to say the least. I am sure all will enjoy. Play through the whole video. Click on link below. Enjoy. take care, Keith YouTube link |
marco56 | 16 Aug 2014 8:50 a.m. PST |
That was a kids in the hall sketch. Mark |
Loyalhanna | 16 Aug 2014 8:58 a.m. PST |
Hello Marco56, Yes it was. Nothing like adding a little humor once in awhile to sweeten the topic. take care, Keith |
marco56 | 16 Aug 2014 9:02 a.m. PST |
|
Loyalhanna | 25 Aug 2014 6:02 p.m. PST |
Hello All, Some more interesting info on the Milice: Montcalm was only one of the cast of three important characters in Quebec. Although subordinate to Governor General Marquis de Vaudreuil, Montcalm had nothing but contempt for the governor, the Canadians, the Natives and the Canadian way of war. To him the Canadians were an undisciplined rabble of little or no military value, who had an inflated opinion of themselves. Montcalm and his officers did not hide their prejudices nor conceal their criticism of Vaudreuil's strategy and method of making war. "The Canadian concept of war is going on raids that resemble hunting parties." Montcalm regularly complained of "petty means" and "petty ideas." The divergence of ideas and differing views on strategy were worsened by the petty jealousy over authority and their desire for recognition and reward. By virtue of necessity, Vaudreuil had to depend on what was known as, petite guerre, a French expression that means, "little war." Comparable to Guerrilla warfare, it represents combat by a military force weaker than an army it is pitted against. The term generally refers to a civilian population that takes up arms against an invader. Petite guerre also refers to "all the movements that merely back up the operations of an army." It involves commandos or special forces. Historically, petite guerre referred to regular, light troops which harassed the enemy, gathered intelligence and carried out deep strikes. Organized into small groups called "parties," they terrorized the enemy's rear. Petite Guerre (capitalized) refers to the irregular warfare used by the North American Aboriginals, that subsequently was adopted by the Canadians, In 1713, the Canadian population was 18,119; in 1754, it was 55,009. New England had 60,000 men available to take up arms, while Canada had 4484 militiamen. Because of their smaller population, Canadians had to adopt military methods that made the most of limited resources. Montcalm's felt nothing but contempt for the militia. "I have used them with good effect but not in places exposed to enemy fire. They know neither discipline nor subordination and think of themselves in all respects as the first nation on earth." |
zippyfusenet | 27 Aug 2014 2:10 p.m. PST |
You forgot, "Burn my letters! Adieu! Adieu!" He was a bit of a drama queen, wunnee? |
Loyalhanna | 27 Aug 2014 3:27 p.m. PST |
Hello Zippy, Even though the Governor was crooked he had the right idea for warfare in the colonies. In my article on loyalhannaoutpost.com about the Milice. Going toe to toe with British regulars in the open was not a bright thing to do. It had terrible results most of the time for the French. Montcalm was stubborn to a fault to insist on this. Also his attitude toward the habitants and their style of warfare did not endear them to him. One can only wonder the outcome if a battalion of French regulars was sent to Fort Duquesne and blended in with the existing troops. Learning the woodland warfare tactics like some were in New York. Nice what if to ponder. Maybe even a good scenario. take care, Keith |
comte de malartic | 28 Aug 2014 4:21 a.m. PST |
I really think that New France never had much of a chance against Britain and her North American colonies. That it took the British so long to defeat them shows more of the defects that the British Colonies had in really supporting the war effort. The French Colonies needed a larger population base and needed to be self sufficient in agriculture. British Naval superiority was also a key factor. Also, both sides needed regular troops to beseige and take enemy fortifications. Relying on "Le Petite Guerre" using irregulars/militia/native americans really wouldn't work. But, the use of irregulars was probably the most efficient way in keeping your opponents occupied and reacting to your moves. Some food for thought! Joe |
Loyalhanna | 28 Aug 2014 9:42 a.m. PST |
Hello Joe, You are right about the outcome of the war. The amount of troops available just could not match what Britain had at their disposal. Had France put more effort into New France, things would have gotten a little more interesting. Naval supremacy played a major role also. The point I was making was that if a battalion of regulars trained in woodland warfare (like the Marines), or even more Marines were at Fort Duquesne. This would have brought the number of French forces to about 2000 ( counting Indian allies). The advance would have been made a lot more difficult, and maybe a few more setbacks like Grant's Defeat may have happened. The one key factor to this scenario would have been to strike before the Indians left in early November( as Forbes had indicated and planned in his campaign). The battles and skirmishes would have definitely had to take place between Loyalhanna and Fort Duquesne. Fort Duquesne would have been reduced to firewood in a siege. If, and I do mean if, the British would have been stalled at Loyalhanna over the winter, come spring the scenario becomes very interesting. You now have the possibility of a large French and Indian presence in the Ohio Country. The amount Indian could have been 600-1200, (maybe even more). The Marines and Milice (600-800). Add in the possible 500 regulars/ Marines reinforcements(had Forbes stayed at Loyalhanna for the winter, this reinforcement could have become a reality), and you have a good size force to deal with. Even though the Brits would have a 2-1 advantage, they would have to fight the French and Indians on their terms and terrain. We know how that turned out for the Brits in the past, and even Forbes and Bouquet expressed their concern of their troops engaged in this type of warfare. This could have been a bloody mess to say the least and could have been a longer campaign with the result up in the air. take care, Keith |
Loyalhanna | 09 Sep 2014 11:30 a.m. PST |
Hello All, Found another good link for Canadian Milice. Enjoy. take care, Keith link |
hiromitsu | 17 Sep 2014 7:21 a.m. PST |
A very nice article. thank you for posting. Do you know if there are roster lists for the Canadian militia, similar to those genealogists have constructed for the New England militias? |
historygamer | 17 Sep 2014 9:48 a.m. PST |
"That it took the British so long to defeat them shows more of the defects that the British Colonies had in really supporting the war effort." I would also add that you can't forget it took the British some time to create a logistical system (boats, roads, forts to store supplies in, etc), as well as train up a wartime army and get the colonists on board. But in the end, it really was all about being able to project military power into the wilderness and sustain it. As wargamers we tend to obsess about units, morale, firepower, tactics, but if you read the period letters of the generals I'd guess that 90% of their time was taken up with logistical matters. |
Loyalhanna | 19 Sep 2014 8:12 a.m. PST |
Hello Hiromitsu, I know there was a book written with the records kept by a Priest I do believe at Fort Duquesne. It provided names with deaths, births, and marriages. I am not sure how in depth it went. I will dig into it. take care, Keith |
Loyalhanna | 19 Sep 2014 8:40 a.m. PST |
Hello Historygamer(Jim), You are absolutely right about the logistics of the war. As gamers and amateur historians we need to look beyond the battlefield. I have two books that really put this subject into perspective. One is "The Papers of Henry Bouquet: The Forbes Expedition". This is somewhat a dry read but has very good first hand accounts in it. The other book is "The British Defeat of the French in Pennsylvania,1758". Both give excellent accounts of the troubles and headaches campaigning presented to the commanders. Bouquet and Forbes both realized that the only way to defeat the French was by bringing their sheer numbers and equipment against them. They knew that they did not have the advantage in woods fighting tactics, and both are quoted as saying this, so sheer numbers was the only answer. With that being said, they needed a road and supply system, and Forbes did a brilliant job at planning this. Forbes just does not get enough credit for this campaign, like Wolfe does at Quebec. St. Clair should have been shot and I think Bouquet would have gladly pulled the trigger with Forbes' blessing. I would strongly suggest to all gamers of this period to really read in depth on this campaign. It really puts in to perspective the hardships of campaigning, and that troops just did not pop up on the battlefield. Getting there and what condition they were in, could have something to do with their fighting ability. take care, Keith |
historygamer | 20 Sep 2014 9:04 a.m. PST |
What?? Kill Sir John St. Clair? Then we wouldn't have that lovely cameo painting of him that gives us at least three period paintings of what 60th officers/soliders looked like. :-) |
historygamer | 20 Sep 2014 9:08 a.m. PST |
I think the reason Forbes gets shorted in history is because there was no big battle at the end of the campaign. A number of skirmishes along the way, but no meeting engagement. Interesting as one was forming up the following spring in the French attempt to retake the forks of the Ohio and Ligone. It was only the British attack on Niagara that prevented that from happening, and honestly, I think they had a pretty good chance to retake some places. |
Loyalhanna | 20 Sep 2014 4:24 p.m. PST |
Hey Jim, Those officers and soldiers of the 60th in the cameo were probably the firing squad hand picked by Bouquet. HA!HA!HA! Your right about no big battle to put on Forbes resume, but what a brilliant campaign. He even calculated the arrival of the main army with the departure of the Indian allies of the French. Maybe that following spring the French could have made some noise in the Ohio country, but the handwriting was on the wall. Lack of manpower, losing some Indian allies to neutrality, plus more British troops coming into the region. It would be an interesting scenario to do. take care, Keith |