"Gorham's Rangers" Topic
24 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not use bad language on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the American Revolution Message Board
Areas of Interest18th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleThe Acolyte Vampires return - based, now, and ready for the game table.
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article
|
Tango01 | 21 Apr 2015 11:22 a.m. PST |
"One of the most famous and effective ranger units raised in colonial North America were Gorham's Rangers. Gorham's unit served as the model for many future ranging companies and they helped teach frontier tactics to both American provincial troops and British regular army units. The rangers in this unit wore a variety of different uniforms over the course of its nineteen year history. The most characteristic part of their equipment were leather "jockey caps", usually with the brim turned up."
Main page link Anyone have/wargame with this unit? If the answer is yes, which is their "average"in wargames? Thanks in advance for your guidance. Amicalement Armand |
historygamer | 21 Apr 2015 11:29 a.m. PST |
This adds some info about the unit. The Brown faced red apparently were only appropriate for 1761 or so link |
historygamer | 21 Apr 2015 11:33 a.m. PST |
Nicely done figures by the way. |
jefritrout | 21 Apr 2015 11:41 a.m. PST |
I have painted up Gorham's Rangers, mostly because everyone and his brother has painted up Roger's Rangers and I wanted to be different. For the most part, they have done quiet well sniping at the edges while the British lights and Colonials do the major fighting. Their constant fire proves more than a match for whatever is thrown up against them. They actually changed their uniforms a couple of times, one was an interested almost turquoise uniform color. |
historygamer | 21 Apr 2015 12:11 p.m. PST |
Wasn't that just for their facings? I am going by what the re-enactor groups wore many years ago, so perhaps new info has arisen since then. |
GamesPoet | 21 Apr 2015 4:03 p.m. PST |
Who makes those figures shown in the pictures of the initial post? |
jefritrout | 21 Apr 2015 4:25 p.m. PST |
I do not know, but I hope the bottom 4 are not conversions and available commercially. Following the link indicates that they are Northstar miniatures. |
95thRegt | 22 Apr 2015 5:25 a.m. PST |
But this is French and Indian War… Bob |
AuttieCat | 22 Apr 2015 8:01 a.m. PST |
I agree with 95thRegt---Although it is helpful, this should be posted in the SYW area, not A.W.I. Tom Semian Avalon, Pa. 15202 |
historygamer | 22 Apr 2015 8:22 a.m. PST |
And that one figure should shave his beard off too. Not right for either period. |
42flanker | 22 Apr 2015 9:29 a.m. PST |
I supppose, if the light Infantry at Louisbourg in 1758 wore "the beard of their upper lips, some grown into whiskers, others not so, but well smutted in that part"- it's fair to suppose that when operating in the backwoods, men of European origin serving as rangers frequently went unshaven, even if full beards were not the fashion in the mid-C18th, particularly among military men. |
Tango01 | 22 Apr 2015 10:51 a.m. PST |
Thaks for your guidance boys. Amicalement Armand |
historygamer | 23 Apr 2015 7:36 a.m. PST |
Smutted? That beard looks like it took months to grow. Oddly enough I was just looking at some pictures of WWII combat soldiers, and other than a day or so growth of beard, all the soldiers in the photos were clean shaven. These from men in almost constant contact with the enemy – unlike their 18th century counter parts. I believe beards were very frowned upon by English society during this period. |
42flanker | 23 Apr 2015 1:06 p.m. PST |
|
Supercilius Maximus | 24 Apr 2015 5:19 a.m. PST |
I think some of the Morier paintings show "growth" but no more than that. I believe that beards were associated with the Celtic "fringes" of the British Isles and hence being clean-shaven was considered, at that time, a sign of being civilised; whilst wearing moustaches was something that foreigners did. Facial hair was completely absent in the Royal Navy and the British Army of this period, and only really appeared in the Army during the Napoleonic Wars, and in the Navy in the Victorian era. There is pictorial evidence that even regimental pioneers were clean-shaven until around 1800 (despite the illustration in the Kiley/Smith AWI "encyclopedia"). |
42flanker | 24 Apr 2015 8:23 a.m. PST |
Oh no! Did he say- "PIONEERS"? Gorhams Ranger were not part of the regular military establishment and, I believe, included in their ranks immigrants from the Celtic fringes of western Britain so perhaps the standards of contemporary urban life regarding facial hair, where regular shaving was the custom, might not have predominated on campaign. I have read suggestions, not claiming any great authority, that in the backwoods facial hair served the same function on a white face as cam cream does today, that it gave protection against insects and also sunburn (and of course it has been claimed that whiskers protected specialists like p-i-o-n-e-e-r-s from sparks…). What is the likelihood of rangers packing razors when they went on prolonged expeditions? Would finely whetted knives suffice? A full beard, however, does need to be nurtured deliberately over some weeks- although I have to say that given the rate at which beards having been sprouting in North London recently, some young men seem able to produce whiskers of rabbinical splendour in a remarkably short time. It is interesting how in the space of two years during the mid-C19th, as a result of the Crimean War and boosted subsequently by the Indian Mutiny, beards became entirely respectable in all levels of British society, as they did later in the US during the Civil War. |
historygamer | 24 Apr 2015 9:39 a.m. PST |
Well, actually there were put on the official military establishment: "In 1761, the unit was officially placed on the British army establishment. The next year they took part in the expedition to Havana in 1762 where half of the company died from tropical disease. The company was disbanded there and its surviving members drafted into British regular army regiments." Their extensive military history, dating back to 1744 would certainly put them as experts on the type of warfare they excelled in, and they worked hand in glove with regulars for almost two decades. It would be no harder for them to carry a straight razor than any other soldier of the period. I believe soldiers of the period only shaved on an every other day schedule. As I pointed out early, you can see thousands of photos from WWI and WWII where the field situation was just a brutal as this period – even more so with the almost constant contact with an enemy – yet they seem to all be relatively clean shaven – with some exceptions of course. |
42flanker | 24 Apr 2015 12:59 p.m. PST |
1761: to be sure, but I was thinking more of the main period of backwoods campaigning prior to that. It is true that a razor is not a large item to pack but I was suggesting that a ranger's daily routine was, perhaps, not as ordered as that of the line soldier and shaving might feature quite low in his priorities while he was out on patrol. Some might argue that washing in general was not advisable while moving covertly. It's interesting that you should cite the C20th World Wars. I have just been looking at photos of the 1st Bn.Black Watch, a number of whom, by December 1914, had grown some very healthy beards. Apart from restoring basic standards of smartness, I believe another reason for insisting on daily shaving was concern that facial hair would prevent the later respirators achieving a tight seal. There was also the problem of lice infestation- not exclusively a problem of trench warfare!- and the static conditions made it reasonably easy to comply with standing orders relating to hygiene. In WWII, an interesting exception to standards of personal hygiene in the C20th British army can be seen in the Chindit brigades where some very fine beards were grown during their ranging expeditions in Burma. |
Supercilius Maximus | 24 Apr 2015 4:42 p.m. PST |
During the recent conflict in Afghanistan, British troops in day-to-day contact with the locals were encouraged to grow beards as a means of binding with them, as they consider facial hair "manly". |
nevinsrip | 24 Apr 2015 6:17 p.m. PST |
As I pointed out early, you can see thousands of photos from WWI and WWII where the field situation was just a brutal as this period – even more so with the almost constant contact with an enemy – yet they seem to all be relatively clean shaven – with some exceptions of course. Sorry, but I dispute your theory that the WW1 or WW2 field situations were just as brutal as the American continents wilderness in the 1750's and '60's. Living off the land in the untamed wilderness without access to medical help, supplies, trucks and airplanes seems a tad tougher than what the average GI had to deal with. Shaving was the last thing that they were worried about. Survival in the North American woods took great skill, courage and a relience on one's self to remain alive. Besides the enemy, there were plenty of natural predators (bears snakes, and so on) to deal with, as well as unfriendly Indians and outright criminals raoming the wilderness at any one time. I'm not saying that the WW soldiers didn't have it rough. They did. But the difference to me is obvious. |
42flanker | 25 Apr 2015 1:32 p.m. PST |
It seems we missed your earlier thoughts, nevinsrip. I dont think anyone here has dipped their toe into the challenging subject of whether soldiers in the C18th backwoods suffered more challenging field conditions than servicemen in later periods. However, in the extreme conditions of jungle warfare, for example, I am fairly confident that long-range penetration units in the Chindit brigades and Merril's Marauders, despite C20th century technology at their disposal, as individuals suffered physical challenges we can hardly imagine. THe subject being discussed here, as I see it, is less controversial, being simply the degree to which irregular soldiers in the FIW campaigns ( roughly speaking) may or may not have observed contemporary custom, military and civil, regarding the removsl of facial hair. There is some evidence that this attitudes to this practice were relaxed and, I would argue, logic supports speculation that when on prolonged ranging expeditions, shaving may not have been a prioriy, and refraining from shaving *possibly* an advantage. |
historygamer | 25 Apr 2015 2:55 p.m. PST |
nevinsrip: Sorry if I did not do a good job of making my point – my point was, that modern soldiers were in almost constant contact with the enemy, while 18th century ones were not. The point being – even in such close proximity, under primitive conditions, WWI and WWII soldiers shaved on some regular basis, at least in looking at photographic evidence. 18th century ones had more leisure time to attend to such niceties, even under their own primitive conditions. Like many here, I have read a lot of journals,etc. While I recall accounts of lack of tents, officers not wearing their red coats, not enough food, etc., I don't recall a lot on shaving. While 42flanker advances an interesting, and not illogical, theory on relaxed shaving, that is hard to support one way or the other – though we know that at least during the F&I British soldiers cut their hair short while campaigning, and I am led to believe they did it again early in the Rev War before the King made his pleasure known that he didn't want them doing that, as they did in the previous war. Too late for many, but hair grows back. :-) But back to my point – that one figure with the Grizzly Adams beard looks more like some modern re-enactors than your average (key word there) period 18th Englishman, at least that we know from period paintings, drawings, etc, including the poor of both city and country. My own pet peeve with the F&I wargame period that is often borders on fantasy and myth. My cross to carry. :-) |
nevinsrip | 25 Apr 2015 8:20 p.m. PST |
I was more talking about the Militia and woodsmen, rather than regulars. I'm sure that the French and British armies kept up some form of decorum in regard to facial hair. However, Rangers and militia pretty much did as they pleased and the people of the frontier disdained the customs and fashions of the 'city'folk. The pioneers were fiercly independant peoples, who wanted nothing to do with government. Especially one that was not of their own choosing. Which is how they looked at "civilization". In short, I would not want my Regulars with facial hair, but for everyone else, it's an option.
As an aside, I had my Kings Mountain Over Mountain Men heads sculpted with a few beards. Mostly, the Davy Crocket type hats, Canadian toques and fur/animal hats. Not many, but enough to break it up. |
42flanker | 27 Apr 2015 2:45 a.m. PST |
I think it's fair to say that the British commentator at Louisbourg in 1758 wouldn't have drawn attention to the men of the Light infantry battalion being unshaven unless it was out of the ordinary. What is particularly notable is that his account suggests that the more hirsute men were not wearing beards but, with "the beard of their upper lips,some grown into whiskers" – were sporting either a simple moustache as it might be called today or something more akin to a set of Ambrose Burnside whiskers. That is how Preben Kannik depicted a British F&IW Light Infantryman in his "Military Uniforms of the World in Colour" of 1971, which with some anachronistic strapped pantaloons did make the figure look rather like a Victorian gent out duck hunting. Why the chin and throat should be kept clean and not the rest of the face is a curious conundrum. Arguably, shaving the upper lip requires a little more care but in the scheme of things leaving it hardly saves a great deal of time. Perhaps the light infantry were affecting a Prussian Grenadier or 'Hungarian' grenzer 'look.' |
|