dave001776 | 25 Jun 2015 11:11 p.m. PST |
Got hold of the above recently, pretty good. One thing that suprised me is the amount of hunting shirts that where worn, might have to re think my Perry units that are mainly in shirts/ waistcoats etc. Would be nice if Alan made a couple of new southern militia packs !! |
GiloUK | 26 Jun 2015 1:55 a.m. PST |
Yes, some hunting shirt firing line types without bayonets would be quite useful. |
Ironwolf | 26 Jun 2015 1:57 a.m. PST |
Others with far more knowledge than I on this subject will soon be posting. But I question early war militia wearing mostly hunting shirts. I'd say after 1777, majority of American soldiers wore hunting shirts or anything they could find. |
Green Tiger | 26 Jun 2015 2:01 a.m. PST |
Its the same writer who did the dreadful volume on the Frontier Militia of 1812 – I will be avoiding it ! |
historygamer | 26 Jun 2015 5:31 a.m. PST |
|
historygamer | 26 Jun 2015 5:41 a.m. PST |
So Osprey seems to have this weird approach that if you have written anything for them prior, you can write for them on any topic – whether you know about it or not. Obviously I can't really read much of the book online, but the picture of the two "militiamen" they used in their book is atrocious. By definition militia were citizen soldiers (not really) called up in time of emergency. They showed up wearing their own clothes, often were not even armed. The states were stuggling keeping their Continental and State troops (and navies) armed, clothed and fed, let alone worry about the hordes of militia that came and went. I will be interested to look at this book when I see it somewhere. It is a shame they did not get a more reputable author and expert on the period (like that fellow Brendan Morrissey) to write this, but I thought Todd Braisted should have written the book on Loyalist units, not Rene Chartrand. |
Pan Marek | 26 Jun 2015 8:56 a.m. PST |
What was wrong with the Frontier Militia 1812 book? Meanwhile, the prevalence of hunting shirt may have something to do with its apparent focus on the southern campaign. |
Bill N | 26 Jun 2015 9:01 a.m. PST |
HG-I think to some extent this depends on the colony. In both Virginia and North Carolina, around the beginning of the war, the colonial legislatures did direct that militia (minutemen in NC) be uniformed in hunting shirts. There are also comments about hunting shirts being common in the Carolinas and being used by Pennsylvania Associators. This may to some extent reflect that hunting shirts were relatively available in this region. It may also reflect that some of the colonies in this area had experience with militia being called out for longer periods of time and understood what such service would require. Remember that Virginia militia was just coming off a war with the Shawnees and North Carolina militia had been used against Regulators in that colony. |
IronDuke596 | 26 Jun 2015 9:05 a.m. PST |
I agree with Pan's question "What was wrong with the Frontier Militia 1812 book?" |
historygamer | 26 Jun 2015 10:23 a.m. PST |
So directing and equipping are two different things. Money has to be raised to pay for it, material has to be found (if it was to be found), it had to be sewn, stored, issued, etc. If you read further in the archives you often find they had great trouble securing anything for the continental and state troops, let alone the militia. Most of the states were broke at some point due to inflation and the worthlessness of the currency. For instance, Maryland directed that ships be built, crews hired and that their state navy take to the waters. Other than for brief periods, with very mixed results, it rarely happened. They had trouble paying for the ship building, securing cannons from founderies (privateers paid more for guns, so you guess who got them first), hiring crews (prize money was higher for privateers than state pay), uniforms issued to state marines (MD was very specific what was to be issued, even the color of the rifle frock for the marines, but were they? How long?) My point being, there are often a huge disconnect between government bodies and troops in the field. Militia ranked at the bottom of priorities for military equipment to be secured and issued by states. The southern colonies had less men, less money, were dispersed over a wider areas. The NJ militias largely ignored Washington's orders to turn out in 1776 prior to Trenton and Princeton. MD couldn't field their militia in late summer of 1777 due to all kinds of shortages (food, tents, clothing, weapons, etc). I do look forward to looking at this book though. |
William Warner | 26 Jun 2015 11:15 a.m. PST |
Although most "hunting shirts" are depicted with fringe, they were generally not made of deer hide, but of linen. They are basically the common workmans' frock, worn to protect the clothing underneath. Fringe was originally meant to protect the seams from water leakage by wicking-away the water. It seems that eventually fringe was also added as decoration. In short, the use of hunting shirts does not necessarily indicate frontiersmen. |
epturner | 26 Jun 2015 11:53 a.m. PST |
I think HG is correct on this. I'd like to see what Super Max might have to say. Just me though. Eric |
Bill N | 26 Jun 2015 1:12 p.m. PST |
@hg-You seem to believe the directions were based on what the legislatures hoped to be able to provide to the militia. I believe they were based on what the legislatures expected the militia could provide for themselves from the resources already within the community. In Virginia before the war even began, a legislature dominated by tidewater aristocracy directed that the county militias be uniformed in hunting shirts. A couple of months later the Culpepper militia, coming from an area easily a generation removed from the frontier, turned out in hunting shirts to confront the Royal Governor. A couple of months after that Virginia's first two standing units were organized, again from areas that are hardly frontier, and they are wearing hunting shirts. Meanwhile in North Carolina you have another legislature dominated by tidewater aristocracy directing that its newly organized minutemen companies, many of which also come from tidewater, be uniformed in hunting shirts. All of this is happening before the rifle regiment establishes its reputation around Boston. This timeline does not make sense if the hunting shirt was a relatively obscure garmant from the frontier whose use was spread as a result of its adoption by the military during the AWI. It does make sense if the hunting shirt was already in much wider use among the general population before the war started. This is not a Daniel Boone type leather jacket, but rather a linen frock that could easily be produced in the area from Pennsylvania south to Georgia where militia supposedly wore them. If the garment was already readily available, militia would not necessarily be relying on colonial or even state resources to supply it. It is not inconsistent to argue that hunting shirts were relatively common among militia of certain areas (and not just along the frontier) while acknowledging that useage of hunting shirts like all other items would have been affected by availability. |
historygamer | 26 Jun 2015 9:38 p.m. PST |
BillN: I just want to make sure we aren't talking past each other. The hunting or rifle shirt was a common garment of the period. Many were produced, especially early in the war to clothe soldiers. While it might not be unusual for a few men in a militia unit to have the same garment, I'm not sure what beyond that you are suggesting in the way of uniformity? |
Bill N | 29 Jun 2015 11:51 a.m. PST |
What I was saying was that the hunting shirt would have been commonly used by militia of certain colonies from the beginning of the war to the end, and the fact that certain legislatures proposed using the hunting shirt as a "common garment" for militia at the beginning of the war is one indication of how common the garment was. Having headed down the rabbit hole though, I do believe we need to discard the idea that all militia would have looked like those that turned out for Lexington and Concord, and that when it came to equipment and clothing the militia operated on the leftovers from the continentals and state forces. A militia man headed for extended service hundreds of miles from home would likely dress and equip himself accordingly, to the extent resources permitted. Those resources were not limited to what state and continental sources could provide after meeting their own needs. It also included the resources of the militiaman himself and the resources from the area where the militiaman was raised. |
historygamer | 29 Jun 2015 12:54 p.m. PST |
|
DWilliams | 30 Jun 2015 7:35 a.m. PST |
Why 'militia' I ask? Osprey really needs to issue a volume on "State Troops" which are a very elusive category – and yet very important – sitting somewhere between militia and continentals. |
historygamer | 30 Jun 2015 9:03 a.m. PST |
Good point. If they do, let's hope the get someone reputable to write it. |
Green Tiger | 08 Jul 2015 2:23 a.m. PST |
What was wrong with the Frontier Militia book? Well firstly it was disappointing in that it only covered the "frontier militia" who fought at New Orleans rather than any of the more interesting state militia units who fought throughout the war. Secondly it was at least partly written in prose. Thirdly the author's conclusions were entirely unsupported by any actual historical evidence or analysis. In short it was the most disappointing Osprey I have ever made the mistake of buying and I wish I hadn't … |
historygamer | 08 Jul 2015 7:46 a.m. PST |
I gave it a quick glance in the hobby shop the other day. Nothing glaring (bad) jumped out at me as I leafed through it. I would need a closer read. |