"Grenadier Flags?" Topic

I am probably setting myself up for a good flaming here, but I want to ask the question anyway. Did converged Grenadier battalions carry any form of Flag?

Now I know that as temporary units, units of converged Grenadiers had no colours and came from lots of different regiments. Clear.

But flags and standards were not just issued because they look pretty; in the confusion and smoke of battle, they were useful markers of a units position and progress (heck there were even commanders who alleged that they could tell the morale status of a unit from how steady the standards were being held).

So whilst it is obvious that Grenadiers would not have carried standards in the conventional sense, might they not still have acquired a flag to mark their position, act as a rallying point etc? Getting hold of a Union flag or National colour of some description would have been dead easy – they always seem to have found them to mark Forts, encampments etc. And whilst the converged flank battalions were "temporary", they often remained together for some considerable time once formed (throughout a campaign and even longer on occasion).

So that is my question then; do we assume that converged Grenadier Battalions carried no Flags because they were not issued with Colours in a formal sense, or is their evidence that says no Colours means no Flags?

Generally grenadiers came as companies from their parent regiments. While company colours were still common at the start of the century they were increasingly gathered at the centre of the battalion, but by the AWI they were not used in the British army (I think there's some suggestion the Americans sometimes had company colours), and grenadier battalions of converged companies did not carry colours. They may well have camp colours or markers, but they'd not have been carried in battle. I may be misremembering but there may have been an order for even the line regiments to store their colours during the Saratoga campaign.

There's the odd exception like the Hessian Grenadier regiment Rall, which was a dedicated grenadier outfit, not a converged battalion; it had colours like any other regiment.

A national ensign, e.g. the "Union Jack" in the British case, would have been handed to a grenadier storming party to hoist once they had carried the position (not least so that their own artillery wouldn't fire at it). That would have been much larger than a colour though, so could only have been carried as a folded bundle until the time came to hoist it.

Also, even if the line regiments of a given army still used company colours, the grenadier company would normally not have had any, as it was itself converged from the tallest, or most reliable, men of the other companies.

By late in the AWI, most regiments would not have carried Colours anyway. It seems that in the confusing terrain where many battles were fought, they were not really needed.
So if they were not needed, why would grenadiers (or light infantry for that matter) need them?

Interesting that you should mention the Saratoga campaign, though.
One of the excuses that the Continental Congress used to repudiate the surrender Convention was that they did not surrender their Colours as required. Burgoyne denied that they had any, which was a blatant lie as they were seen flying over them in battle. But Gates winked at this subterfuge.
So they did have flags but swore on their honour that they didn't.
The grenadiers did not, though.

The converged flank battalions not only didn't carry colours, but often times it is questionable whether the center companies (hats) carried colours in the field either. That said, my hats usually have colours.

In regards to camp flags, in many instances the troops on campaign didn't even have tents, so the need for camp colours (let alone the wagon space to carry them) was not there.

The Americans, under von Steuben's (?) direction, came up with a system of division colours. I believe they can be seen in one period painting (Princeton?). The Brtish did not use such a device.

I think you, like I used, are putting too much emphasis on the use of the colours for the battalion to align itself.

Some sort of ad hoc standard to serve if not as a rallying point then as a focus of esprit de corps is a reasonable proposition. However the detached flank companies maintained a strong link with their parent regiments, who remained responsible for basics elements such as pay and issue clothing. As you probably know, there is some indication that detached flank coys continued to wear regimental facings on the their coats or jackets where circumstances allowed.

Some individual commanders of flank corps might stamp their authority on their battalions, for instance in the form of clothing adopted for campaign purposes. Capt Peebles of the 42nd writes frequently of the nether wear he is expected to acquire in spring and autumn. As Captain of his grenadier company he was nonetheless responsible for the provision of the garments ordered by the 1st Grenadier Bn comander (whose name escapes me).

According to one late source, it was General Howe who, early on, ordered the flank corps to adopt distinguishing feathers in the cockades of their round hats: white for the grenadier battalions, green for the 1st LI battalion, red for the 2nd LI. Tradition relates it was Major Maitland, CO of the 2nd LI who ordered red feathers for his battalion. Evidence regarding either version is inconclusive.

We do know that by 1778 the amalgamated Light Infantry battalion wore a green cap feather while the Grenadier battalion wore a white feather in their hats. These seem to be the most systematic flank corps identifiers that we know of during the AWI.

In most European armies, the grenadier companies were not issued with company colors, hence there were none with the converged units in, say, the Prussian and Austrian SYW armies.

IR6 Grenadier Garde regiment was a single battalion regiment in the Prussian army that carried colors. The example of the Hessian Rall regiment is the only other example that I can recall of "grenadiers " carrying colors.

Afterthought: I am trying to think: after Bunker Hill other than Fort Washington in November 1776 and Forts Clinton and Montgomery in October 1777, were there other occasions in which a British force, grenadier or otherwise, stormed fixed positions during the AWI?

I was wondering, were there recorded occasions in which an ad hoc Union flag was given as a TRF to troops mounting such an assault?

42flanker:

I want to say that somewhere I have read the frustration of the converged battalion commanders in not having say over the uniforms of the men under their command.

Thanks for all the replies guys.

I do get how Grenadier Battalions were made up from the companies from Line Regts, and it is absolutely clear Colours would not have been issued.

My question was more – did they improvise something in the field, especially given the length of time that some of these units remained together?

General consensus seems to be not (excepting the oddities like Rall).

42nd Flankers excellent post though does tell me that some efforts were made to distinguish the units, and that to me says that improvised flags – particularly for storming defences – may have been there.

42ndF – in answer to your question, I can't think of any assaults other than those you mention. I believe that Fort Johnson was taken at the siege of Charleston (an outwork down river), but whether there was a fight or not I don't know.

There was the failed Hessian assault on Fort Mercer, but I don't know if they had a Flag issued as a marker.

There were quite a few Assaults on Fortresses in India at the time. There do exist detailed instructions for the dispositions for the abortive storming of Pondicherry (abortive because the French surrendered). I have checked though – mo mention of a flag.

You are in the 18th Century Discussion page, so let me comment on the 7 Years War French.

As I recall (Funcken?) the French Grenadiers de France had very attractive colors during the 7 Years War. I believe the regiment had 8 elements (not called battalions). This is the regiment wearing small bearskins with red bag; blue breeches and coat with red facings. Lafayette's father was killed at Minden (commanding one of these units) by British artillery.

There were also "many" battalions of "Grenadiers Royaux," formed years earlier from the grenadier companies of the militia. They wore an all-white uniform, ?gold? braid on their tricorns. They all had a color – again attractive.

GdeP

@ GdeP, those would only confirm the rule, as they were standing regiments (even if originally formed from drafts of several units, a practice quite common when forming new line regiments as well). Most importantly, they rated a full colonel, and only through him a drapeau colonel as well as drapeaux d'ordonnance.

Bottom line, they belong to the same category as Prussian IR 6 and Hessian Regt. Rall: permanent grenadier regiments under their own colonel, as opposed to converged battalions under commanders designated for the campaign.

@ Crazycoote, they're your figures and you can equip them any way you like, but to the history student the fact that we have evidence of the uniform hat feathers, but none about any flags, would precisely tend to show that none were carried.

History gamer, was this what you were thinking of?-

Letter fragment, written by Brigadier General Simon Fraser (Lt. Col.,24th Regt.) to Major John Acland (Major, 20th Regt. and commander of the British grenadier battalion of the Canada Army).

4th of March 1777

Sir

Major Genl Phillips some days ago signified his wishes to me that the Grenadier Battalion should have some uniform covering for the Head. I conceive it beyond the limits of my authority, to make any alteration in the Dress of a Battalion composed of different Companys, without the
concent of the Field officers Commanding the several…

[the next page is ripped out of the original notebook, but the letter continues on page three]

…will allow, he declares his Determination, and calls upon every officer to assist him, to maintain a steady uniform System of Subordination
and obedience.

[The continuation is the last sentence in the preamble of General Burgoyne's order to the troops issued June 18th 1777]

Thanks GdeP. I intentionally cross posted to 18thc discussion as I am interested in the answer for more than just the AWI. Thank you for the information.

@musketier – I have already done 3 units of Grenadiers – 2 British & 1 Hessian. None have flags, and honestly I would rather not go back and retrofit!

However, It is precisely because I am a student of history that I am keen to see whether the received wisdom (no flags) is based on direct evidence or on a logical extrapolation (ie no colours issued = no flags of any sort).

Crazycoote, to be fair, I wouldn't want you to think that by mentioning the flank corps practise of wearing a distinguishing feather circa 1778 I meant to suggest that this argued for the use of unofficial company or battalion flags. The circumstantial case against is very strong.

I think camp colours were still in use at least up until the Philadelphia campaign as they were necessary for Battalion QMs and QM sergeants in order to set up camp lines at the end of a day's march, even if there weren't any tents to begin with. The same would have been true on the march through New Jersey the following year.

Understood. It interesting though to see the complications caused when units are converged in the way Grenadiers were throughout the 18th c. On the one hand you have quoted examples of how the units command wished to give them some distinction; on the other hand those companies were clearly regarded as "borrowed" and belonged to their parent regiment.

And you are right to say the case against flags is strong, but circumstantial.

I still find it slightly odd that these elite temporary units would not have improvised some form of flag as a battlefield marker alongside their use of other improvised unit distinctions – but maybe the absence of evidence is evidence of absence in this particular case.

The hat battalions at this time did not carry flags into the field. Why would the grenadiers?

I'm of the opinion that some sort of improvised color was carried. I've reenacted for years and there have been times when I was part of a battalion of 500 plus men in two ranks. Keeping alignment is very difficult when crossing an open field, which would be considered open terrain in most rules. I can imagine how nearly impossible it would be without the colors.

I've also noted that there is a captured British flag in a museum in Brazil, I believe. Captured during the Napoleonic wars. It is very crude and was clearly not a regiment's issued flag. I'm going from memory but recall it was taken from one of the ad hoc units that attacked.

Their is evidence that the Americans used division flags (divisions within a battalion/regiment), but none for British.

DnJackson – remember, most battalions weren't that big, and standard doctrine was to fight in two wings, not line our neatly aligned regiments on the table. First person accoutns often lead me to believe that even those lines were irregular and broken up at times. Look how fragmented the British Lights were at Birmingham hill.

For those of us who are old enough, I remember the game by CS Wesencraft, Practical Wargaming. His 18th Century approach was to fight a battalion as companies. You rolled to see what the individual company did in line – which was not always the same as your intent. It was a rather unique approach and perhaps realistic – though frustrating to most wargamers as your troops did't always do what you want them to do.

Afterthought: I am trying to think: after Bunker Hill other than Fort Washington in November 1776 and Forts Clinton and Montgomery in October 1777, were there other occasions in which a British force, grenadier or otherwise, stormed fixed positions during the AWI?

Fort Griswold during Arnold's raid into Connecticut in 1781.

Dn Jackson: there is a considerable difference between 500 re-enactors gathering for a weekend drill (no matter how many years they have done it) and professional soldiers who drill every day. Perhaps marching across an open field is not as difficult for the professionals as it could be for the re-enactors.

Prussian and French doctrine was to align with a distant prominent feature such as a clump of trees, a church steeple or a group of buildings ("point de vue" or "gesichtspunkt").

There was recently a rather long thread on TMP about regulating battalions that might provide some additional insight to the question.

I don't think the British ever used them, but the French may have already evolved the "musket barrel fanions" that became popular in the Napoleonic Wars, during this period.

Somebody mentioned division colours in the Continental Army earlier on – the Monmouth Historical Society used to have a flag on display (it's now been removed) that they insisted was the colour of the 2nd Grenadiers, taken at Monmouth from Lt Col Monckton's cold, dead hands. Later turned out to be (most likely) a division colour from a Pennsylvania regiment that had been at the battle.

Grenadier battalions throughout Europe managed perfectly well without them for decades and, as already mentioned, most British line battalions operated without them during the AWI (and had done so by official order for part of the F&I War 20 years earlier). As DAF says, regular soldiers are not re-enactors – no disrespect to any on here who are the latter!

@winston.

Sorry I did not reply to your question. The real world occasionally draws me back (kicking and screaming but heigh-ho).

The fact is that I do not subscribe to the view that the British never carried their colours into battle during the AWI. Morgan at Cowpens mentions taking the colours of the 7th, there are mentions of flags at Camden, Princeton etc.

Equally, there is plenty of evidence to say that on occasion the Colours were not carried into action – there is the Saratoga controversy, the example of the F&I war and others.

I would surmise (purely guessing) that whether Colours were carried depended on a number of factors;
1) if the regiment was expected to be split off into separate detachments for garrison duty etc they probably got stored
2) if they were expecting to engage in terrain (eg the frontier of New York) where flags would not have been visible – and therefore not useful – probably not taken
3) for minor actions, skirmishes or sudden engagements, I also suspect that they would be left behind with the baggage.
4) but if they were expecting a major engagement in the open field, I believe there are enough examples to say they were taken into battle.

Additionally, while we are on the subject, even where colours were not carried into battle, they do seem to have still accompanied the army. At Yorktown apparently some 100 flags were surrendered – including the Regimental colours of 6 British and 18 German units. Which also begs the question, what were all the other flags for? I haven't a clue (and no – I am not arguing they belonged to the converged grenadier or light infantry battalions)…

The fact is that I do not subscribe to the view that the British never carried their colours into battle during the AWI. Morgan at Cowpens mentions taking the colours of the 7th, there are mentions of flags at Camden, Princeton etc.

In fairness, nobody is suggesting that they were NEVER carried; there are references to them being born into battle (Lamb mentions carrying the King's Colour of the 23rd at Camden). It's just that not carrying them had been common during the F&I War (resulting from an order by Amherst) and was one of a number of trends that were resurrected – this time without an official order – in the AWI. Cropped hair was another.

The loss of the 7th's colours at Camden was as a result of Morgan's troops capturing the British baggage train, where they were stored.

To add to Crazycoote's criteria for carrying or not, there is also the state of the colours – the N American climate was more extreme (both hot and cold) than that in the British Isles, and this would have taken a toll of the silk. Of the other four criteria suggested, only one is disputable – where a battalion was split up, the colours would go with the largest part, or if they were of equal size would remain with the CO. In some odd cases they might have been split up, one per "wing" (half battalion), especially in a large unit – I suspect the 42nd did this when it split into two battalions (which were in fact two large wings, each the side of a conventional line battalion).

At Yorktown apparently some 100 flags were surrendered – including the Regimental colours of 6 British and 18 German units. Which also begs the question, what were all the other flags for?

I think you must have mis-read that; 6 and 18 were the number of colours surrendered, not the number of units who did so (I think the British units were the 43rd, 76th and 80th). It is possible (just) that 100 flags were captured in total if you include camp colours, which were used to denote the "street" of each company when the battalion was in camp. Many of the regiments in the South were issued new ones at some point in 1781, and there were a number of occasions where Rebel forces got over-excited about capturing these and getting them mixed up with the real thing.

From the examples I have found, carrying or not seems to be a decision taken at regimental level. However, in certain cases there appears (I emphasise appears) to have "rules" of a sort. The very large – and mostly newly-formed – units that arrived in the latter half of the war seem to have done so (either to cope with the size of the unit, or its inexperience, or both); another common factor is the seniority of the battalion within a brigade (eg the 9th Foot in the Saratoga campaign) – often this was the "regulating battalion" for brigade-level manoeuvres and may well have carried them to give the other units a visual marker, rather than for just their own purposes.

Some of the clues can be very subtle – eg the detaching of 20 men per Line battalion involved in the Bunker Hill action, in order to "protect the baggage" (which is where they would have been stored). Bunker Hill is also a battle where the nature of the fighting makes the absence of any mention of British colours suspicious.

"As DAF says, regular soldiers are not re-enactors – no disrespect to any on here who are the latter!"

While we are not, we do have some advantages over our period counter parts. For one, we are better educated, and can all read. Most/all of us have read some sort of drill manual – enlisted included. We drill at the small level all the time, larger scale a few times a year, not unlike our peace time equivalents of the real army. In the field no one is really shooting at us, so we are more alert to commands and not worried about the enemy – meaning, we tend to stay in formation.

We form large groups often – 100 men or more. My own experience from having been in line commanding a platoon, carrying colours, or leading these large groups is that, other than when we stop to dress the line, the colours are largely ignored. We are focused on our own platoon, the ground we are walking over, or the enemy. My experience anyway.

Thanks SM.

Winston Smith asked "The hat battalions at this time did not carry flags into the field. Why would the grenadiers?" Suggesting they were never carried, but maybe I took that mistakenly.

As to the "100 flags" – lazily I took that from the Osprey book by Brendan Morrissey. Page 77 – no misreading.

As with all Osprey's however, there are no authorities cited, so since you questioned it I have had a look at a few other books quickly to hand (Boatner, Carrington) none of them mention anything other than the 22 or 24 colours above. So – probably Mr Morrissey's bad (or mine for not cross checking facts before speaking).

Could be a typo, as that author is pretty good with his facts.

Agreed, I like his books a lot, and would buy anything he published.

All authors can make mistakes however; I guess the value of fora such as this is that we get to challenge and check our sources – which is great.

As to the "100 flags" – lazily I took that from the Osprey book by Brendan Morrissey. Page 77 – no misreading.

Sorry, the mis-reading comment related to your reference to the 6 and 18 "units" rather than 6 and 18 colours. In fact, 100 is perfectly feasible if you include 8-10 camp colours for each of the British and Loyalist units – unlike regimental colours, there would have been less incentive to smuggle these out (as the 23rd and 33rd did).

OK.

Perhaps (conjecture) handing over a whole load of flags from any old source might have been done intentionally to hide the fact that they were trying to smuggle some of the real Colours out. Funny if so…

I suspect there were quite a few flags left over from the sunken fleet there as well. There were two frigates and a bunch of transports that were sunk off shore. Ships were loaded with flags.

Good point; ships were both scuttled deliberately, and sunk by Franco-American gunfire – their crews then later served ashore among the defenders. A contingent of Marines was also landed, I believe.

(@historygamer – Interesting point, did "informal" Marine shore parties, ie other than the battalions serving in Boston and Halifax, carry flags at all? Given the independent nature of Marine tactics, I would have thought the men were sufficiently self-disciplined to be able to act together as a unit, especially a small one, withouth needing such an obvious alignment/rallying point.) or

The only reference I have seen to Marines carrying colours is when the two composite battalions in Boston sent home for colours and grenadier caps.

Yes, small party of Marines at Yorktown, no doubt off the frigates in the river. About 30 were reported to have been stationed outside the star redoubt (Fusilier) there.

How many colours in this painting?

link

I see one here to the left but it looks an odd size

Never seen this one before:

link

Here is another

link

Wow. Lots of interesting things in those pictures. Lines in 3 ranks; all sorts of different light infantry gear; overalls; not to mention the flag thingy. Unfortunately a lot of it is too small to make out properly; I might try and order a print tomorrow…

Ranks of three is what the manuals called for, though they had gone into ranks of two during the F&I and this war, when needed. I believe these are militia units, so not surprising they would do a mock battle in ranks of three.

Here is a link to both Philippe de Loutherbourg's paintings from the Royal Collection with zoom capability and brief historical notes. Both paintings record a Royal visit to troops concentrated at Warley Camp near Chelmsford, Essex, in October 1778.

Warley Camp- The Mock Attack
link

Warley Camp- The Review
link

Loutherbourg's accompanying sketches, now held at the Anne Brown collection, show a mix of militia regiments -Glamorgan, Rutland & Worcester- and at least one regular- the 6th Regiment of Foot.
link

In the upper left corner of the 'Mock Attack', behind the large (positional?) Union flag there, a line of troops can be seen with a set of colours. _Possibly_ another in a regiment holding the treeline at top centre.

The 'Review' painting, apart from the large Union flag by the cannon in the centre, shows several sets of colours, three, I think, along the line of troops paraded in front of the tents in the background.

Great pictures. I see the colours in "the review" and also clearly in the sketch titled "Parker excercising the army at Warley camp".

I was blissfully unaware of these excercises at Warley, which seem to have involved militia from a number of different counties. The timing is interesting, in that France had just declared war; I guess they called these militia regiments up quickly and marched them south to Warley in response to the very real concern of invasion.

They are indeed a treasure trove, and the studies show that there is a degree of historically authentic realism in the finished work, despite the epic style

As to the "100 flags" – lazily I took that from the Osprey book by Brendan Morrissey. Page 77 – no misreading.
Sorry, the mis-reading comment related to your reference to the 6 and 18 "units" rather than 6 and 18 colours. In fact, 100 is perfectly feasible if you include 8-10 camp colours for each of the British and Loyalist units – unlike regimental colours, there would have been less incentive to smuggle these out (as the 23rd and 33rd did).

crazycoote, SM

The colours and flags surrendered at York Town were as follows:

Regiments standards. Geran, 18; British, 6; British union flags, 4

Camp colours German 32, British 41

From: "Return of ordnance and military stores taken at York and Gloucester, in Virginia, by the surrender of the British army, on the 19th of October, 1781."

Awesome – thank you so much Thomas Mante.

How many colours in this painting?

link

Whilst it's a perfect example of a battalion advancing in line without them, can I just point out that the flagless battalion in question is also composed of grenadiers (with what looks like a flank guard of two units – companies or platoons? – of light infantry). Thus you have killed two birds with one stone – congratulations!

Further congratulations on spelling "colours" properly. ;^))

Loutherbourg has focussed on a company of grenadiers flanked by Light infantrymen. It hadn't fully dawned on me that all the troops in the spotlight, as it were, might be flank troops as well. Looking more closely it is evident that the defenders are a light infantry company in line supported by battalion guns and the troops farther to the right (of the defending LI in Neo-Classical caps) appear to be grenadiers. Certainly, no colours on view there either

Loutherbourg's surviving sketches show he had concentrated on the grenadiers and LI, perhaps as they were more showy, but it seems that that the generals had been drilling flank companies, least of the regular battalions, together in composite battalions.

-"The Light Infantry and Grenadiers then marched with the artillery through the woods towards Little Warley (followed by the whole line in two columns), where, as well as in the adjacent woods, several batteries were placed, and many manoeuvres of attack and defence were performed, with the continued firing of musquetry and cannon, to which the situation and variety of the ground were very favourable and afforded much pleasure to the numerous spectators."

I believe the troops had been concentrated at Warley throughout the summer of 1778 as a protective measure against a French descent on the Thames and Essex waterways- one of the most direct, least encumbered, routes for an invasion force to reach London. By October any composite battalions so formed would have been reasonably well drilled. So there is no reason to think this is not a reasonably realistic depiction of how the troops were deployed that day.

What is interesting to read are the comments made by Howe on the state of the troops of the Boston garrison in the aftermath of Bunker/Breed's hill. These can be found in Howe's orderly book which has been published. In short, Howe felt that the troops were poorly trained and could not advance in line very well.

Well, this thread is a blast from the past. See kids, this is what the American Revolution Board used to be like. Before people got blacklisted and before everything became political.