"The AWI Militia " Topic

The AWI Militia will be available in September.

From main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Wow, they are stunning!

Wow is the word… Nice photography as well!

AWESOME…28mm? If so i will be buying some!

Those are gorgeous looking figures, both in terms of the painting and the realistic proportions of the figures. That picture alone makes me want to buy some of these even though I don't like to assemble plastics.

Happy you enjoyed them boys!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Why're they wearing hunting shirts?? That was a Continental Army thing. Militia wore civilian attire.

Bob

I always thought hunting shirts were a type of civilian attire. That hunting shirts made up sometimes over half the civilian attire of "backwoods" militia units.

I thought that the Continental Army saw their benefits, all weather, easy to make, tough and comfortable, and adapted a regulation version for the army.

I maybe completely wrong but I remember all those paintings of Daniel Boone, Davy Crocket and pioneers in general in the late 18th and early half of the 19th centaury, wearing hunting shirts.

Hunting shirts were worn in the frontier areas where clothing had to be rugged and able to withstand the elements.

The closer people lived to a city the easier it was to get store bought clothes. Frontier people made their own so the simplest most practical design was used.

This is my own thought about Militia.
When I hear the word "Militia" used in the context of the AWI my mind goes right to the Northern Theater. Boston, Saratoga, Lexington and Concord and Bunker Hill.

In the South, I associate the word "patisans" with civilian soldiers. Virgina may have had regular Militia, but the Carolinas and Georgia had partsans, in my mind.

Anybody else?

A rose by another name. The terms minutemen, militia and state troops could have varying meanings from location to location, and also from one year to the next. Our meaning of the term "partisans" is probably colored by the use of that term in WW2. Lee and Armand's Legions of continentals were officially partisans.

I'm looking at this set less as a set of true militia and more as a set of AWI infantry wearing something other than "regimental" coats.

They look good but not a fan of plastic figures.

I would agree that "militia" in the more obvious/iconic sense would rarely, if ever, have worn hunting shirts – otherwise, why else would the States and/or Congress have to issue them to the Continentals?

If painting New England militia leave out the hunting shirts and rifles. Neither item was common in N.E. before the late unpleasantness.

I think I might use them to bulk up my FIW units. They look like some might blend in well with my good old country boys.

If painting New England militia leave out the hunting shirts and rifles. Neither item was common in N.E. before the late unpleasantness.
>>
The same could be said for NY militia at times as well.

Perry makes a couple great sets of Northern militia with just civilian clothing and muskets.

Bob

@SM-I am having trouble understanding your comment about hunting shirts. Could you walk me through it?

I thought that hunting shirts were in use in less settled portions of the colonies prior to the war, that they were initially worn by troops raised from those areas and were later adapted by the regulars as an alternative to more conventional uniforms. If that is the case, then why wouldn't militia subsequently raised from those less settled regions continue to wear hunting shirts on campaign. I don't see why issuance of hunting shirts to regulars would preclude use of hunting shirts by those who owned them who were serving in militias.

The militia used in the war was mainly from settled areas, where hunting shirts were not widely worn. Hunting shirts, or frocks should not be confused with a work shirt, though the two have a somewhat similar structure.

Most hunting shirts would be a natural linen color, not – though they may have been dirty from wear and lack of washing. :-)

As for F&I militia, the coat facings and cuffs would have been bigger and the waistcoat longer those on the fellows pictured above.

To be a further stitch nazi, the hats on those fellows look a bit too tricornish for me, as opposed to cocked. That said, they are nice figures and nicely painted. :-)

Does that guy on the end have a racoon hat on?

Does that guy on the end have a raccoon hat on?
>>
If he does,I won't buy the set just because of that!

I have the other 2 plastic sets from them,and to be honest,I wasn't very impressed and won't be purchasing anymore.
My figures are 99% Perry,and these don't fit in very well. I'll paint them up,and put them aside just for display. I also don'y like the fact that they have separate individual bases.

Bob

Can't see a thing wrong with them.
Mark

I have the plastic Perry and WE boxes and I will probably use most of the sprues. We have a healthy attitude at my club towards gamers who make a real effort even if the details are not spot on.
So there is little doubt these fine fellows will turn up on our tables once released as we game that most unfortunate conflict.
They will share the table with Perry metals, Conquest, North Star and Fife and Drum. They will play the part of the brave Loyalist and Patriot militias and fight just as well or as poorly as their metal compatriots.
Me? Looking forward to finding out what the last two boxes are.Germans please, or cavalry, ooh, or maybe French or artillery…

I am going to have to sit down and count the manufacturers in my AWI army. The last time I did that was more than 5 years ago and it was more than 25. It has gone up since them.
These will join them.

BTW John the OFM did not write up a review on these. I would know.

I'm not disagreeing that militia prob. would not wear hunting shirts, but by late war a militia called up might contain men that had served in other units through the war- that was certainly so for the militia here in Westchester. The militia was infamous for going home with all sorts of state issue gear, so maybe a shirt or two.

They appear to be knit caps, Liberty Caps perhaps?

Since Matthew Brady wasn't around for the AWI, I tend to think that anything goes as far as uniforms and dress go.

NY Irish posted what I was thinking. No reason someone finished their enlistment and went home. Decided to turn out for a short time with their local militia.

I thought that hunting shirts were in use in less settled portions of the colonies prior to the war, that they were initially worn by troops raised from those areas and were later adapted by the regulars as an alternative to more conventional uniforms.

Yes, that is broadly what happened – Washington recommended to Congress that hunting shirts be issued to all Continental troops so the British would think they were all riflemen. This was during the siege of Boston, so late 75 or early 76, when the only unit wearing hunting shirts on the Rebel side was the Pennsylvania/Maryland rifle regiment (Smallwood's regiment later arrived at NYC wearing them to cover up their lack of uniformity, having been raised from several pre-war militia units).

As well as hunting shirts, frontier guys would have other items of clothing unique to them (leggings, moccasins etc) that would not be seen on an easterner turning up for militia duty in a smock or something else that might look similar to a hunting shirt (see post above by "historygamer").

If that is the case, then why wouldn't militia subsequently raised from those less settled regions continue to wear hunting shirts on campaign. I don't see why issuance of hunting shirts to regulars would preclude use of hunting shirts by those who owned them who were serving in militias.

The point is that such areas were usually not officially colonised and would not have a militia as such (hence you get the Over The Mountain men); or else the area would be so sparsely populated that they would be unable to produce viabe units. The vast bulk of the militia would have been from settled areas and wear normal clothing. The problem with this set is purely and simply that the clothing mix is wrong for this troop-type. It would have been better to have included hunting shirt men in the Continentals box – which is what the Perrys have done – and had a few more civilian clothing variations (eg short coats, Scottish bonnets, old FIW uniforms etc) in the militia box.

Since Matthew Brady wasn't around for the AWI, I tend to think that anything goes as far as uniforms and dress go.
>>
Research,research RESEARCH!

If you do that,you will find that isn't always the case..

Bob

I am guessing some of you are doing PA-NJ-NY 1776-1780, so maybe things were different up north. In 1775 the Culpeper Minute Men were reputed to have turned out in hunting shirts. Culpeper, Fauquier and Orange counties in Virginia was not exactly plantation country, but it also was a couple of generations removed from being frontier country. If their militia wore hunting shirts in 1775, it should be reasonable to assume that the frontier militias from Augusta and Washington counties that served at Kings Mountain, Cowpens and/ or Guilford Court House had men wearing hunting shirts. It should also be reasonable to assume more recently settled areas such as the counties near Lynchburg that sent militia to Guilford Court House did as well.

Then there is Troiani's painting of a NC militiaman ca. 1780-81 in a hunting shirt. Unfortunately there isn't a source listed for the uniform, but Troiani is usually considered reputable.

Depending on what militia you are trying to represent, I don't think it is necessarily unreasonable to have a certain number in hunting shirts. They can also be mixed in with certain continental troops.

In my late militia units I will generally add one or two ex Continentals who are wearing their old issue coat. Be it a blue face red, brown face red etc. and the occasional hunting shirt which was issued.

I have never had any doubts about having hunting shirts mixed in with my Militia but now I beginning to second guess myself.

I have never had any doubts about having hunting shirts mixed in with my Militia but now I beginning to second guess myself.
>>
Southern militia,yeah,probably more hunting frocks than Northern.

I use Troiani prints as my research. Prints such as Kings Mountain,Oriskany,Bunker Hill, show some great shots of militia attire.

Bob

The Culpeper Minute Men (Virginia) wore hunting shirts
(some sources say brown others green) with Liberty or Death on the front in white letters. They fought at the Battle of Great Bridge.

v/r

Joe

The Culpeper Minute Men (Virginia) wore hunting shirts
(some sources say brown others green) with Liberty or Death on the front in white letters. They fought at the Battle of Great Bridge.
>>
Thats only ONE unit..

Bob

Not all militia is the same. Militia from NC would probably not look like Minute Men or militia from Mass. Many frontiersmen were actually in continental units like the 8th PA Regt. So it is hard to simply label a unit militia and have a one size fits all for clothing – if you are trying to be historically correct.

Let's not forget that some soldiers serving as short-term Militia may have had prior long-term service in State Troops (different from militia) and/or Continental units. Uniforms and equipment from prior service could show up later in militia units. Troiani's excellent SOLDIERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION for example, has a soldier serving in the 'Virginia State Troops' wearing an old ragged uniform that dated from prior service in a continental Virginia regiment.

Amicalement,

Don

So maybe the best way to summarize my feelings on that photo is that 5 out of 12 figures pictured seems too many rifle frocks/hunting shirts for a local militia unit. Opinions may vary. :-)

Terrement,
I am a Red Sox/ Pirate fan, but loved your humor on that last post. I salute you!
take care,
Keith

As with much else in the ARev, what we don't know exceeds what we do. Most of the comments above are both right and wrong, depending on where and when.

I know as much about the Virginia militia in the Rev as anyone alive (my dissertation, so I've read everything remotely pertinent). There are patterns, but every pattern has exceptions.

The frontier counties such as Augusta had the same militia system as everyone else. The state was reluctant to call up militia from either frontier (the other one being the"eastern frontier" which was the tidewater exposed to British privateers' raiding) but did so in dire emergencies. And militia on both frontiers saw plenty of action, just not primarily against British regulars.

And the militia field forces changed profoundly after Camden. Then again after Guilford, with Cornwallis' invasion.

So I would be reluctant to make ANY generalization about Virginia militia, without specifying year and region.

I do not hesitate to give my militia hunting shirts. Westerners MOSTLY have them, easterners MOSTLY don't, but hurrah for variety.

BTW, the "Over-Mountain Men" included a large contingent of Virginians who were definitely militia, commanded by such as Col. William Campbell. I'm sure the North Carolingians were likewise militia; I don't see how they would have operated effectively without some organization, and the militia was what everyone did.

Washington County is rooted in the Watauga settlements, which were established in the early 1770s in the vicinity of what is now Elizabethton, in adjacent Carter County. At the outbreak of the Revolutionary War in 1776, the Wataugans organized the "Washington District," which was governed by a committee of safety. North Carolina initially refused to recognize the settlements as legal, but finally agreed to annex the district after the settlers thwarted an invasion by hostile Cherokees. The settlements were governed as the Washington District, which originally included all of
what is now Tennessee. The district was reorganized as Washington County in 1777

Washington County would have had the same militia system as the rest of NC.

Just as general note, westerners were extremely sensitive to land titles. Remember that Washington was chosen to lead Virginia militia into Ohio in part because he was trained as a surveyor. There were a few brave souls who may have moved onto empty land and chopped and built log cabins, but overwhelmingly you wanted a courthouse and a legal deed to the land you spent a year of backbreaking labor clearing. The Virginia frontier, at least, was organized into counties, with representation in the House of Burgesses and a militia, right from the start.

Western counties were typically huge; Augusta County, whose court martial record book still exists in the state library in Richmond, was the entire Shenandoah valley plus what is today west Virginia. Population was thinly spread and scattered, of course, and distances were great, so the militia captains had more autonomy than in eastern counties. An Indian raid would be responded to by the local militia officers -- including pursuit of the war party if it had captives.

Doc, I'd love to read your dissertation sometime, or get together with you to discuss Virginia during the AWI. I have the feeling we would disagree on much, but it would be informative.

Just to clarify though, Augusta county during the AWI wasn't as big as it had been earlier. There were five frontier counties at the outset of the AWI, three of which were located in the Shenandoah. During the war additional frontier counties were added. I mentioned Augusta because the Virginia militia that provided a couple of companies in Morgan's third line at Cowpens included troops from Augusta.

Right, I misremembered when Augusta was subdivided. Thanks.