"Coureur le bois et companions" Topic

Hi
Added some "Wood runners" and Canadians/militia from to redoubt to my blog.

take a peek if you like:

link

all the best Rasmus aka miniaturepainter

Using your link only got me some nice wild west figures! Even clicking the French and Indian wars tab didn't help.

Just thought you should know….

Hi thx mate…

This should help

link

regards Rasmus aka miniaturepainter

Worth waiting for!

Those are quite lovely!

Yet another spelling.
Would Canadian troops wear hunting shirts? We were just discussing that for New England militia and consensus was No.

Beautifully done.

'Post-contact', Lakes and Appalachian Indians (a broad kirk) did wear a linen shirt on occasion, no?

Might some 'c-de-b' (c-l-b?), especially 'metís', not have done so as well? Entirely ignorant about fringed bucksin clothing, so I'll shut up now.

Show hunting shirts, as to the validity of these pictures as accurate portrayals, I give no guarantees, they are from a google image search!

Hmmmm….
Ok then!

It's certainly possible that these pictures portray CdB. However, they were mainly trappers/hunters who went after animals for their pelts. In order to show off their skills, bravery and keep warm they more often wore fur coats or fur capes and fur hats in various styles (some with peaks/visors) that generally went below the ears along with a mix of Indian clothing and or long shirts made of cloth. Feathers and beads were added to dress up some of the hats, their hair and neck. A sash might be worn around the waist and a head scarf under the hat. The more complex their attire the more affluent they looked to their peers.

The only thing missing from those pictures that would make them any more accurate are laser pulse rifles.

Please say it with me, there was no such things as CdB. Pure fantasy.

But why let facts get in the way of a good debate. :-)

Please say it with me, there was no such things as CdB. Pure fantasy.

Okay, I am intrigued.

Are you saying that there were no French and métis in the Canadian fur trade, involved in trapping and sending pelts back 'downstream' for shipping back to Europe? That's not to mention those living among woodland and lakes tribes, and involved in fighting against British and colonial forces.

No, not really. No. If you have some facts about that I'd like to hear them.

The fur trade in New France was highly regulated by the government. The trapping was done by the Indians, bringing in the furs for trade goods at government licensed facilities. There were very few people living on the frontier in New France. The majority of the colonists were congregated around villages now found in modern Canada. The forts were garrisoned by soldiers and generally few, if any settlers around them. While a few (very) of the French Canadian population intermarried with some of the tribes, it was an exception, not the norm.

I am speaking directly to the F&I period of 1755 to 1760.

Please cite a specific battle and the OB where the CdB appear.

They were not at Braddock's defeat.

They were not present during the Forbes campaign.

No mention of them at Niagara in 1759 or Quebec.

If any white men or men of mixed race were trapping fur with the Indians, they likely remained there.

Indians were a fickled ally even to the French. Montcalm has a nose full of them after Fort William Henry. They brought marginal military value to the battlefield for large forces. They were a classic guerilla warefare force, requiring many more numbers than they could bring to defend against.

The French militia were of marginal military value as well. Just read Parkman and how they performed around Quebec, or them running away at the first shots at Braddock's Defeat. Militia in most wars are of little account, at least on a battlefield.

The "coureur des bois" (runner of the woods) are very much a part of the French-Canadian cultural heritage. The early French government of New France (Canada) wanted to control the lucrative fur trade and trade in general with the Indians. To do this they issued a licence to a select few. So anyone that engaged in trapping or trading without a licence was called a coureur des bois.

Some of them lived with the Indians and inter married. They were basically the frontiersmen of New France that included anyone who was not a fisherman, farmer, villager or soldier. It is estimated that at one time roughly 30% of the young male population of New France were coureur des bois.

The militia (La Milice) were organised by parish under the three regional governments Quebec, Montreal and Trois-Rivieres. As such any coureur des bois living within these areas could be part of their parish La Milice. It's also possible that some were drafted into the Marines and regular units. So there were no units of coureur des bois, but they were certainly within the formations of New France. I do, however, recall reading that someone did refer to them being at a battle, probably Quebec or St Foy. If so they were probably in the La Milice, but must have been able to stand out from the rest of their unit.

Yes it was quite a problem for the French that so many young men ran off to the wilderness.Many times when British and American trappers/traders pushed westward they would find Frenchmen or children of Frenchmen with the indians and they had been there for years.They had many settlements along the Mississippi river.
Mark

Note this write up shows the end of the coureur des bois period around 1715, due to the regulations you cited above (and in the link provided).

link

"It is estimated that at one time roughly 30% of the young male population of New France were coureur des bois."

I stated my time frame (F&I War). You did not in your passage above. Could be from the 17th Century when few people lived in New France, so was an easier number to acheive? No way 30% of the male population qualifed for this title in 1754.

"As such any coureur des bois living within these areas could be part of their parish La Milice."

Few people qualified for this title in 1754, and fewer still were living with tribes, or would have even shown up for military service if they did. But if you have any facts to base this on I would very much like to see it.

"It's also possible that some were drafted into the Marines and regular units."

The make up of the Colonial French Marines is better known. While the officers were French Canadian, many of the enlisted men, largely drawn fron Eurpoe, were not. Marines included a pot pourri of all kinds of nationalities – and was a sort of forerunner of the French Foreign Legion. But it was a uniformed branch of the Naval Department, not some sort of irregular troupe of soldiers drawn from the milice. Their duties were largely to garrison outposts.

Likely more militia ended up in the regular French Army ranks at Quebec than Marines, which are shown as a separate battalion in OBs. Montcalm blamed some of the defeat on the milice who caused confusion in the ranks of the regular army units. IIRC, Montcalm said they threw themselves onto the ground when the English fired. Not something the cosmopolitan troops would have done.

But again, no one has offered any proof of the existance of the CdB as some sort of military unit on the field of battle.

"Many times when British and American trappers/traders pushed westward they would find Frenchmen…"

Not in 1754. There were no Frenchmen in modern day Wastern PA. None, except the Colonial Marines and occaissionaly sessional milice – mainly used as muscle in boats, canoes and for carrying stuff. In fact, the area did have English traders, but no French. The English traders (traders, not trappers) were driven off by the Marines and French allied Indians.

The French had very limited settlements in present day NY.

link

But note this was a site created by priests, not adventurers. That was not uncommon during this time period. But no CbD mentioned.

I'd also point out that any white men living with the Indians would likely be indistinguishable from the Indians. White men captured and adopted by the tribe looked like their captors. This is well documented in re-captures, especially during the Pontiac Rebellion period. Whites mixing with Indians would not likely have beards either. Beards were out of fashion and certainly were not worn by Native Americans.

Keep your CbD if you like. Your wargame army, your choice. But they were not a force in the F&I War, though they are often popular in the lore of gamers. Kind of like many of the misperceptions about Rogers Rangers.

I think after the alleged hay day 1649-1681 of the coureur des bois it becomes difficult to establish or confirm just exactly who was and who was not one of them. I think pretty much any woodsmen thought of themselves as a coureur des bois. So it's certainly possible that a number of them were still active during the war. Stuart Reid in his Osprey book Quebec 1759 mentions them being in the La Milice. He calls them coureur des bois or bush-fighters.

I think when the war broke out the Marines were under pressure to expand and that they started drafting men from La Milice. As the war progressed the regular units needed men as well and I think they were able to get them from one or both. Regardless it does seem likely that some coureur des bois were in some of the units.

To my knowledge no one has claimed that there were any independent courer des bois units.

"Nous sommes tous savages" was the carved inscription that was found in the abandoned Fort Crevecoeur in the Illinois in 1690. Fifty-odd years later, Pierre Charlevoix commented on the large numbers of French colonists who had taken to Indian life and would not return to "civilisation" (Journal d'un Voyage..dans America Septentrionale, 1744). The temptation to take to the woods, escaping the restrictive life of a a farmer, dominated by priest and the Bourbon writ, seems to have remained strong.

How recognisable those assimilated into native society might have been is an interesting question. Skin colour, with an added patina of of grease and smoke, helped by exposure to sun and wind, would have been increasingly less of an issue among succeeding generations as a métis community grew up.

Beards would have been less easy to manage without razors, for those of European stock, in contrast to the much less hirsute Indians who could manage facial hair with occasional plucking sessions although steel blades, if not actual razors, could have been acquired through trade. Clothing for all would have been a mix of European trade textiles and animal skin.

The desire to be assimilated would have been an influence upon some to be as indistinguishable as possible (even though once accepted, or adopted, there seems to have been very little discrimination against those of 'alien origin.'

If you think there were no Frenchmen in the west then you need to read about the settlements in Illinois territory or the founding of St. Louis in 1760 by the Chouteaus who supplied Lewis and Clark on their Expedition of Discovery.They were all over the place.The British found them in the Northwest.
Mark

The coueur de Bois were unlicensed fur traders, most being young Frenchman looking fur adventure and a quick buck. Of course they are not mentioned being in any battles as they were civilians, never a formal military unit. Please read the following with unbiased views on what they were and what they did. Also please read the articles linked at the bottom for more information on the Coueur de Bois.

link

link

So does anyone have a credible source of participation inbthecwar. Please, no speculation. First person account would be a good start.

The only thing missing from those pictures that would make them any more accurate are laser pulse rifles.

Please say it with me, there was no such things as CdB. Pure fantasy.

So called Historygamer, statements above are absolute unmitigated trash. You high jacked a post and look stupid as a result. Coueur de Bois obviously did exist so back to playing 40k.

"I am speaking directly to the F&I period of 1755 to 1760."

I can only assume by your personal attack that you are trying to shift the focus away from the fact you don't have any facts about these supposed warriors taking to the field?

Here, let me help you with some research. Montcalm and Wolfe, by Francis Parkman has no mention of CdB, métis, etc. None.

Pierre Pouchet, Memoirs on the Late War in North America Between France and England, has none.

The Most Extraordinary Adventures of Major Robert Stobo has none.

Neither does Ill-Starred General by Lee McCardell.

Nothing in Braddock at the Monongahela by Paul E. Kopperman.

Nothing in Breaking the Backcountry, The Seven Years War in Virginia and Pennsylvania, 1754-1765, bu Matthew C. Ward.

So are you seriously suggesting all these seminal works on the F&I period somehow missed mentioning something?

To go down a level further, Rene Chartrand's Monongahela 1754-55 Osprey book has no mention of GdB, etc. To be fair, he goes on about the frontier experience of some of the milice, but he kind of minces around the fact that they all reportedly ran away at the opening shots at Braddock's Defeat. He says they eventually came back, but I haven't seen that in any other source, and the NPS feels this work has serious enough errors that prevent them for selling it in their gift shop. It is interesting to note that in Chartrand's approved art work, the milice look like the above painted figures, sans the bearded buckskinner figures.

The bottom line is that there were French frontiersmen in whatever designation that you want to call them in that time period.Nobody said that they had their own units.only that they might have been in the militias,acted as scouts,fought with the indians.
Mark

History gamer, you've clearly read widely on this subject. Out of interest, to what extent did Frenchmen, army officers or otherwise, accompany Indian parties on raids or acting as liaison on operations against British troops in the period 1754-58? Moreover, to what extent did some of these, whether out of preference or as a diplomatic gesture, take off their coats and go, even a little, a native? I know I have read some references to this. Is that myth, too?

Well, we both likely know they did. The names that come to mind are LaForce (Stobo was designated to be exchanged for him, though IIRC Washington advised against the exchange), Langalde, and Louis Coulon de Villiers. I suspect their value was in understanding the American Indian culture and what helped motivate them to fight on behalf of the French Crown.

But as both sides found out the Indians were a very mixed bag and could not always be relied upon. I believe Montcalm largely gave up on them after the siege of Fort William Henry. I seem to recall they ate him out of house and home and brought little military value to the campaign.

link

The work of the milice is best know for supporting military operations, often supplying muscle to move supplies. I don't think even the Colonial Marines thought much of their fighting ability, especially given their performance at Braddock's Defeat (they ran away). Most milice were farmers in New France. While some may have been living with the Indians out west, there is no record of them in the war that I've ever seen, as noted by the books above, and others I didn't mention. As more continental military forces on both sides took to the field, the militia on both sides were relegated to less important duties.

The one incident of the milice mounting an attack, at the urging of the French Canadian governor, was a night attack during the Quebec campaign. The result was a muddled march that ended up with them shooting at each other and falling back in confusion.

I also seem to recall that it was a Colonial Marine officer that was surprised by the English scaling the cliffs outside Quebec. I seem to recall that hapless officer was also responsible for another military blunder prior to that.

I would also point out that the French, Canadians and Indians had no idea where Braddock was prior to the battle. The same thing happened when Grant appeared outside of Fort Duquesne in Sept 1759 – they had no idea that a large English force was so close. Not showing much woodland skills there.

Whether the Indian war parties ravaging the frontiers, largely praying on settler families, had any white men with them is somewhat irrelevant given that all their deprivations did nothing to win the war for the French Crown.

In regards to your question about their field dress, who knows. The one that does come to mind is Beaujeu at Braddock's Defeat. Not surprising he did modify his dress given most of his "command" were Indians, but he had a devil of a time convincing them to follow him.

Dumas, his second in command, who took over when Beaujeu was killed, oddly enough he was not a French Canadian – but instead transferred from the regular army some years prior. Being from Pittsburgh myself, I can understand why they dressed down in July weather. Of course Braddock had sensibly put his men in linen small clothes, something that would not be done again till the AWI. My point being, military clothing was modified throughout this war by both sides.

I would point out that my reaction here was based on the title of this thread that specifically cited CdB, and features golden age mountain men in that well painted grouping of figures.

Pittsburgh then, I forgive you. Go Steelers and Pens.

I take the point but I don't think that the effectiveness or otherwise of French irregulars was being debated. Ditto, the overal value to the French of Indian raids on the English frontier.

Was the French failure to scout the British columns marching to the Ohio forks in 1755 and 1758, in part, down to their Indian auxiliaries?

The modification of field uniforms by both French and British soldiery, is not under question. I was thinking more of the image of French soldiers dressed as Indians, if only superficially and as a diplomatic gesture, feeding the idea of French men gone native, fighting as part of Indian war parties.

I brought up the point about French irregulars as it is often associated with the romanticism attached by wargamers to the entire CdB thread. They were not SEAL Team Six in the woods. I thought it relevant to the subject of the thread.

Interesting question you ask about who was responsible for scouting and patrolling. From a military standpoint that responsibility would fall on the French garrision. As I noted earlier, relying on Indians was mixed at best. But my point was also that either the French were not scouting, or missed the English. Not sure how you could miss a 1,400 man column (1755) or a 900 man column (1758). Grant was thumping about the woods the night before, and even burned down a storage barn, which the French and allies never saw. It also belies the fact that the milice present brought any additional value in the scouting department either.

Interesting to note the English had the same problems with both their own scouts and Indians. IIRC, there is an amusing tale of an English scout sent out in 1758 with some Indians to scout FortDuquesne. IIRC, the scout was bitten by a rattlesnake and had to return (likely very sick) to the British troops with nothing to report – other than the woods had rattle snakes. Reminds me of an event I held at Jumonville some years ago where one of the lads found a rattle snake skin (shed) about 5+ feet long. Yikes. Glad I didn't meet him.

In regards to Frenchmen (and Candadians) dressing like Indians, I believe that is how some of the English and colonists referred to their mode of dress. Certainly more practical at specific times of the year, and culturally more acceptable to the Indian allies I am sure. I think as noted earlier by someone else, buckskin, doeskin, etc, was not widely worn except perhaps as footwear and maybe leggings, though wool trade cloth could be worn as well.

Funny how the French Canadians get all the press about such prowess. How about Fraser, Croghan, Johnson, or Gist? There were other English traders/scouts every bit as good, and sometimes better than the enemy they fought. They also knew the geography a lot better than any French Canadians from out West. But they seem to get short shrift in wargaming circles.

Yes – Go Steelers and Go Pens! :-)

If I have time, I'll post an interesting article from Rene Chartrand about a French and Canadian military expedition from the 17th century. I found the article in the Company of Military Historians Journal. It was interesting to see the make up of the force sent out to battle the English and how they were dreseed.

Hello historygamer!

You seem to have almost eliminated the coureur des bois from French-Canadian culture from 1755-1760 based on your limited resources. In turn your also asking the forum to confirm your wrong by providing you with firsthand accounts. Yet you offer no such proof for your position.

The first thing is your inability to find any reference based on your limited resources does not make it so. The more common approach is for you to offer the proof that they were almost gone. The fact that your simply unable to find some type of confirmation only confirms that you can't prove your position. Your inability is not in itself proof of anything other than your lack of creditable research.

Most military books on the F&IW 1754-1763 simply refer to the armies of New France as containing soldiers, Marines, La Milice, Milice, militia, French, French-Canadians or Canadians. There is rarely if ever a reference to anybody's civilian occupation. No mention of any teachers, farmers, bakers, lawyers, etc. So why would you expect to see any mention of the coureur des bois?

You have mentioned one of Rene Chartrand's books where he refers to some of the milice having frontier experince. These were probably coureur des bois as pretty much all French-Canadian woodsmen thought of themselves as such. I'm not aware of any other name being used by the French.

It is pretty much accepted in Canada that the coureur des bois existed during the entire fur trading period which started before 1755 and ended after 1760. I'm not aware of any documentation beyond your statement that says they were reduced in numbers from 1755-1760. Even so reduced to what?

The military system within New France during the F&IW would seem to have made it very difficult if not impossible for all the coureur des bois to have avoided military service. Your position seems to be the complete opposite and seems highly unlikely.

To put any substance to your position you would need to study pretty much all the French-Canadian documentation produced by the priests and governments throughout the fur trading period. Until I see such a detailed study from you I must consider your position completely without merit.

Anyway looking forward to seeing your article written by Rene.

Best regards,

Glenn

You seem to have almost eliminated the coureur des bois from French-Canadian culture from 1755-1760 based on your limited resources.

*As I said, I could not find any referenc to them, though many wargamers simply refuse to take facts for an answer. But put whatever you like in your army, I'm just saying there doesn't seem to be any factual basis for CdB – especially as unit, certainly not in buckskins, beards and coonskin caps.

In turn your also asking the forum to confirm your wrong by providing you with firsthand accounts. Yet you offer no such proof for your position.

*Hard to prove a negative. Prove that invisible people don't exist in a parellel universe. I am asking for proof that these people field under the name CdB. I assume you have nothing either. Please note, I'm not the one that named or started this thread.

The first thing is your inability to find any reference based on your limited resources does not make it so.

*Actually, my resources are pretty good on the period. I only listed a few of the books I have, and even less than I have read. I have worked with F&I historic sites around the country including Fort Ti, Fort Pitt, Fort Necessity, Old Fort Niagara, Colonial Williamsburg, to name a few. In other words, I am not your average wargamer and I didn't just fall off the truck.

The more common approach is for you to offer the proof that they were almost gone.

* I never said that. It was the wiki link I posted that seemd to indicate they had run their course by 1715. I have no idea. I do know that fur trade in both colonies (English and French) was highly regulated. It was much more common for white men to act as traders (licensed or otherwise) than to be out actually trapping beaver.

The fact that your simply unable to find some type of confirmation only confirms that you can't prove your position.

*Sorry, having trouble following your logic there. I would say that the seminal historic works on the period don't seem to support that CdB exists in any military sense. I have no idea who was out living with the Indians. Could be Chinamen for all any of us know. The war parties that were led by white men for the French tended to be Colonial Marine officers, usually on assignment. How much of a command influence they had is open for debate.

Your inability is not in itself proof of anything other than your lack of creditable research.

*I have a lot of inabilities, but it is not my job to prove a unit of men that didn't exist actually existed, or didn't. Perhaps you can have a go at that one. :-)

Most military books on the F&IW 1754-1763 simply refer to the armies of New France as containing soldiers, Marines, La Milice, Milice, militia, French, French-Canadians or Canadians. There is rarely if ever a reference to anybody's civilian occupation.

* I beg to differ. Even Chatrand has broken down some of the backgrounds of the militia. There are works out there if you look. Have you? I have. One excellent one on VA militia is entitled, Soldiers When the Want to Be. I believe it was someone's dissertation. Hard to find, but an excellent read. The recent Brumwell book on Washington does a great job filling in some of the blanks on the VA Regiment during the war too.

No mention of any teachers, farmers, bakers, lawyers, etc.

*Not true. Some of that is even listed in Chartrand's Osprey book on Quebec, though that book contains some odd errors. I prefer Reid'd work on the subject if looking for a quick read Osprey book.

So why would you expect to see any mention of the coureur des bois?

* I would not, nor would I paint up a unit and call them that. On this, I think we agree.

You have mentioned one of Rene Chartrand's books where he refers to some of the milice having frontier experince.

*Yes.

These were probably coureur des bois as pretty much all French-Canadian woodsmen thought of themselves as such.

* Although I am not sure what you're basing that ascertion on, then doesn't that kind of water down the title and make it have less meaning?

I'm not aware of any other name being used by the French.

* Civilians? Habitant? Canadians?

It is pretty much accepted in Canada that the coureur des bois existed during the entire fur trading period which started before 1755 and ended after 1760.

* Pehaps, but they didn't seem to play any particular role in the war, at least that is noted by historians.

I'm not aware of any documentation beyond your statement that says they were reduced in numbers from 1755-1760. Even so reduced to what?

*As I said, it was from the wiki article above. Obviously the fur trade went on, but it was primarily conducted by the Indians with white traders. Remember, not all Indians were friendly toward the French either.

The military system within New France during the F&IW would seem to have made it very difficult if not impossible for all the coureur des bois to have avoided military service.

* Do you have facts on that or is that just opinion?

Your position seems to be the complete opposite and seems highly unlikely.

* Facts to support your claim?

To put any substance to your position you would need to study pretty much all the French-Canadian documentation produced by the priests and governments throughout the fur trading period.

* Which has been done, to some extent, including Jenning's Empire of Fortune. Good book on the subject.

Until I see such a detailed study from you I must consider your position completely without merit.

* Not my job to prove a unit that didn't exist, didt exist. I have no doubt some men of frontier skill were mixed in with the Milice. But did they look different? Did they possess special powers? I'm not seeing that in the pages of history, are you? If so, please cite. I am pretty sure none of them looked like the bearded fellows in buckskin that seem to show up so often on F&I gaming tables either. Please note how the milice look in Chartrand's works. Unless you are saying you disagree with him on that, and again, I would ask for facts to back up that ascertion.

Hello historywargamer!

"I'm just saying there doesn't seem to be any factual basis for CdB – especially as unit, certainly not in buckskins, beards and coonskin caps."

You are now clearly denying that there were ever any CdB and that the two pictures are fabrications? I've never said there was a CdB unit and I don't think anybody else did either.

"I am asking for proof that these people field under the name CdB."

I believe they took the field as members of La Milice.

"Please note, I'm not the one that named or started this thread."

That's correct, your the one who hijacked the thread into your own point of view.

"Actually, my resources are pretty good on the period. I only listed a few of the books I have, and even less than I have read. I have worked with F&I historic sites around the country including Fort Ti, Fort Pitt, Fort Necessity, Old Fort Niagara, Colonial Williamsburg, to name a few. In other words, I am not your average wargamer and I didn't just fall off the truck."

Sorry but I see nothing in there that says anything about the CdB or the La Milice.

"I have a lot of inabilities, but it is not my job to prove a unit of men that didn't exist actually existed, or didn't. Perhaps you can have a go at that one. :-)"

Once again, nobody is claiming that there was a unit of CdB!

"I would not, nor would I paint up a unit and call them that. On this, I think we agree."

Yes!

" Pehaps, but they didn't seem to play any particular role in the war, at least that is noted by historians."

Exactly which historian has said that no CdB played any part in the war?

"Not my job to prove a unit that didn't exist, didt exist."

Again!

"I have no doubt some men of frontier skill were mixed in with the Milice."

Oh, and what would you call them, bakers, butchers, candlestick makers or CdB?

"But did they look different?"

Probably, as some of the Milice wore their civilian clothes.

"Did they possess special powers?"

I guess that explains your bizarre post about "laser pulse rifles" and "pure fantasy".

"I am pretty sure none of them looked like the bearded fellows in buckskin that seem to show up so often on F&I gaming tables either."

My impression is also a little different, but I can't rule them out. I have no actual source that says that they didn't look like that.

"Please note how the milice look in Chartrand's works. Unless you are saying you disagree with him on that, and again, I would ask for facts to back up that asertion"

It's reasonably well known how the milice tried to look. It's also reasonably established that some of them simply wore their civilian clothes.

So the bottom line for you seems to be that you have absolutely nothing in writing by any creditable source to back up your claims that the CdB did not play any part in the war.

I will at least give you a quote from Stuart Reid's Osprey book Quebec 1759, page 18, "In other words the regulars got the rubbish while the coureur du bois or bush-fighters remained in the ranks of the militia proper."

Best regards,

Glenn

Sorry guys, priorities last night were:

1. son's 14th birthday

2. planting flowers out front

3. watching my Pen's win game four

I did get a chance to do some research and came up with some rather surprising numbers I'll share. Also came across some command breakdowns for some scouting parties as well. I also promised to share Chartrand's info on that 17th centry military operation as well. Haven't forgotten.

Can't we just conclude that Coeur d'Bois did exist, just not into any formal regiment or unit. They would be part of militia.

Can't we just agree to disagree.

And yes go Pens.

I am interested in HG's info.
Mark

Stand by guys, very busy night. I run one of the largest 18th century re-enacting organizations in the country and sometimes that takes precedent.

I will share some of the info on the Compagnies franches de la Marine and Canadian Militia in the Military Expedition of Chevalier De Troyes to Hudson Bay – 1688, by Andre Gousse (my old acquaintance from my F&I days at Old Fort Niagara). Please note I am condensing the article.

The story revolves around a military expedition sent out to recapture some French fur trading outposts from the English in the Hudson Bay. The outposts were captured by the English, with the help of French turncoats, in 1684.

The recently appointed French Governor General Marquis de Denonville ordered the posts recaptured and the turncoats brought to justice. It was put under the command of a French Marine Captain, Chevalier Pierre De Troyes, who had recently arrived from France with the Governor in August of 1685.

De Troyes' troops comprised 31 French soldiers (marines) and 70 Canadians. The soldiers were all recently arrived from France too, and were drawn from different companies. Some of the Canadians had expertise as sailors, carpenters, surgeons, blacksmiths, and armorers. All men would be paid a share of the profits of captured goods and furs.

Various officers were appointed to help command, many of them having family interests in the fur trading company Compagnie du Nord, which financed the expedition. A Jesuit priest accompanied them as chaplain. He had been to Hudson Bay three times prior. A Mr. Saint-Germain was captain of the guides.

Each soldier received one blue wool capot, two shirts, one tapabord (a cap), one red wool waistcoat, two pair of leggings, one pair of French shoes, two pairs of moccasins, and one pair of wool breeches. The Canadians received one wool capot, three shirts, one blanket, one pair of French shoes, two pairs of moccasins, one pair of leggings, two painted cotton kerchiefs, two pounds of tobacco, two knives, two combs, and one tapabord. The tapabord is described like a sailor cap with folding peak in front and a flap around the sides and back to protect the ears and neck. They were often blue lined with red.

Soldiers carried their regular weapons and accouterments; flintlock musket with a plug bayonet, a brass hilt sword, and buff leather waistbelt and a cartridge pouch on a buff leather shoulder belt. Other weapons were brought to arm the Canadians (likely meaning they had no weapons of their own) including 130 muskets, 50 pistols, 100 plug bayonets, 50 grenades, 60 swords or sabers. Two rifles were also issued to the group which was very a unusual occurrence in the history of New France.

(note – anyone who has run through the woods with a sword knows this is not a great weapon in the woods. The English all ditched theirs during the F&I War, and the weapon was formally done away with after the war for most English soldiers)

The expedition packed gunpowder, lead, tobacco, cooking pots, axes, picks, and shovels. They carried three and half months of supplies for the arduous journey including brandy, salt pork, hard tack, rice, dried corn and peas, ham, pepper, clove and salt. They traveled in 37 canoes and took snow shoes, dog sleds, and 37 oxen sleds to carry the canoes on the ice. Oil cloth and bark were brought for tenting.

They left Montreal on March 29th. The various English forts (outposts) were captured one by one and the soldiers returned in October, leaving the Canadians behind in the various trading posts (note – the author called them trading posts). The posts were later returned to the English, as was much of the region, by treaty.

Me again. Some interesting take-aways here. Assuming all militia are already armed is a common misconception, one the French did not make as noted in the article. There is no great detail on the guides, whether they were drawn from the ranks of the militia, or perhaps were even Native Americans. I suspect some of what they brought along might have been used as trade goods or offerings to the local Indians. Supposition on my part, I grant you. Note how long the journey took and the amount of supplies needed, even if they also hunted along the way. I suspect that is what the rifles were for. I have never seen any mention of French with rifles during the F&I period and we know they were not used by the French military during the AWI period or during the Napoleonic wars – although other countries used them in both periods.

The accompanying art plates, done by Francis Back, show a militia man and marine in capots (which have a military look about them with slash cuffs and buttons with piping), snow shoes, muskets, and tapabords. Both are clean shaven. Yes, clean shaven. The militia man wears what appears to be buckskin leggings with fringe, while the marine wears wool leggings (later worn by the English regiments in North America starting in 1759).

I believe Andre works, or did work for Parcs Canada (historian?). I know he was highly regarded in F&I circles, especially at the museum level.

Off to bed lads. I'll try to post some interesting facts about the milice during the F&I period tomorrow, but I have a riding lesson and it will be a busy night. :-)

Oh, source for the above condensed article was Military Collector & Historian, Journal of the Company of Military Historians, Vol 60, No 3, Fall 2008, pages 208-209.

Interesting article but has nothing to do with the CdB. It's not likely that they would join in an expedition controlled by the government and sponsored by a commercial fur trading company. The CdB were not fond of either of them and was actually working to undermine them. However, only five occupations are mentioned of the 70 civilians. So it's still possible that the odd CdB was in the expedition.

The tapabord cap that came in various styles and the wool capot (a sort of long blanket coat) was commonly worn by French-Canadians. Some of CdB would wear these items as well with some of the more seasoned ones adorning themselves with fur on their caps, some with fur capes and some with fur coats in the winter.

I ran across the article as the cover of the magazine caught my eye since it featured two Colonial Marines (a drummer and enlisted man). I slightly disagree with your assessment of the article not being related to CdB. The author, a well known Canadian historian, never uses the term. I found it interesting given the time period and lack of the CdB terminology.

Just to be clear, I am not a CdB denier. Sure, they existed somewhere, but the fact is that none of the seminal history books on the F&I period ever use that term, though wargamers commonly do (as noted on this post topic). I am also sure none of the milice (CdB or not) looked like Jeremiah Johnson either.

Interesting Canadian website that puts some numbers (only 500) on the CdB in the same time period (arguable the hay day of CdB) as the article I quoted from:

link

I'll have more in the next day or two for those interested.

Was doing some more research last night on this topic and will have more soon. I came across a surprising frank revelation from Chartrand about the lack of Canadian bush fighters during the F&I period that I'll share as well.

Hello historygamer!

"I slightly disagree with your assessment of the article not being related to CdB."

That's okay, but to me an article that never mentions CdB, can't relate to them.

"The author, a well known Canadian historian, never uses the term. I found it interesting given the time period and lack of the CdB terminology."

I have absolutely no idea why, when an apparent historian writes an unrelated article to the CdB that you would expect to see him use the term.

"Just to be clear, I am not a CdB denier. Sure, they existed somewhere,"

I'm certainly glad that you have now made that clear. I assume now were strictly down to where.

"but the fact is that none of the seminal history books on the F&I period ever use that term,"

That's not true, I quoted you one.

"I am also sure none of the milice (CdB or not) looked like Jeremiah Johnson either."

Although I agree that I've never seen a drawing of any of the milice looking like the pictures above. I can't rule out the possibility that some of the CdB that operated in America didn't look like that. You have to remember that they operated over a vast area over a long period of time and it's certainly possible that their attire would vary from time to time and region to region.

"Interesting Canadian website that puts some numbers (only 500) on the CdB in the same time period (arguable the hay day of CdB) as the article I quoted from:"

Well your statement certainly seems to differ greatly from what the website actually states. It says there were only 500 CdB in the "Lake Superior country", although large that is only a small fraction of New France. In 1680 that area was almost pure wilderness and the 500 CdB were probably the only if not a major part of the (none Indian) population at that time.

Sorry hg but I really have no idea why you want to use none related CdB books or articles to justify your position which seems to deny the participation of the CdB in the F&IW. While you use actual CdB information in a seemingly misleading way.

Best regards,

Glenn

Glenn:

Do you have anything to offer from your sources on the subject? Other than just from an Osprey book?

Another debate about Canadian militia! We just had one of these that went 40+ responses about 2 years ago. I have been "Skulking in the Woods" observing this debate and pondering whether to get into this again. The problem is having the time to put all the info out there again. So at this point I will keep it short for now and just address a some issues:
1. Like historygamer, I have an ongoing collection of books on the FIW period. Yes, historygamer and I know each other. He commanded the 60th Royal Americans when I was in the 77th Montgomery Highlanders. He will be the first to tell you that he and I do not always agree on topics in the FIW, especially when it comes to the Milice. Historygamer has a passion for history like I have, and we dig deep into the sources we have, even though those sources may conflict or who we consider reliable.
2. With all that being said, I have not seen any reference to the term Coureur des bois used to identify any troops. The reason for this is because the Canadian Milice absorbed them into their own units.When studying this period you will find them referred to as Canadians,Milice,Canadian Militia,French irregulars, and etc… Bougainville makes a reference about the Milice at one point in the book "Adventure in the Wilderness". That to few of the Milice they have are of the western type. At this time in history western type would refer to those in Montreal and west. So even though these trappers and traders did things illegally they still would have been required to muster into the Milice.
3. Bruce Egli (A very learned individual on all things French in the FIW and has appeared on some FIW programs), had a discussion at Fort Ligonier about the Canadian Milice. Clothing or equipment used is really what ever was available in the 18th century. He said that some could have been even dressed in fine clothing that came from France, because the nobility was not frugal to say the least and discarded even once worn garments to be given away. These were then shipped to New France for distribution. As far as animal furs and hides, these were a valuable trade commodity and would not have been wasted. But even with that being said there were documented accounts (Bougainville for one), that states the equipment of the western Indians consisting of beaver,buffalo,and bear.Western Milice no doubt would have adapted some of this equipment for their own usage since they did live among the tribes. Myself, I would have no problem showing a very low percentage of these in a unit, but not entire units.I think a good rule of thumb would be to take what was available to the average Canadian civilian and mixed with what the Indians wore from different tribes.
4. As far as the fighting quality of the Milice goes,it could vary. One thing that must be remembered is the location these men came from. Montreal was considered the beginning of the western territories. It had a strong connection to the fur trade and was inhabited by some very rough and unsavory characters. These coupled with those from further western areas would have been excellent for woodland warfare because of their close dealings and association with the Indians as witnessed by Bougainville's account above. Even the priests of the time were disgusted that so many had adopted the native way of life.
To say that they were not a factor or contributor in woodland warfare is just not true. These men(like the Indians), lived to fight another day. They were irregulars and would fight on their terms which included survival. Even the French Marines adapted this type of warfare into their training, and still maintained the ability to fight as regulars. To judge all Milice on one action of running away is really not fair. If they did run away on this occasion, then there in good company. Because I have read accounts of Highlanders,regulars,Rebs,Yanks, and U.S. Marines running away on different occasions. Most Milice also new how to use their firearms. Even though some might have been farmers, they still had to rely on bringing in game to supplement their food supply. That is why when the Milice mustered they were required to bring their firearm(and it varied on what they carried from muskets, fowling pieces, captured arms, and some were even double barrelled. Those that could not supply a firearm, the government issued one(there is some speculation that this might have taken place so as not to damage their personal firearm).
There are also the first hand accounts from Forbes, Bouquet, and Washington about the disadvantage they face by having to fight the combined French(Marines),Canadian(Milice),and Indians in woodland style warfare. Which proves the point that Marines were not just garrison troops, Milice were not just civilian contractors, they all were an integral part of this excellent woodland warfare force. So much for a short response.
take care, Keith

Hey Keith:

I'd generally agree with your statements. Remember my response was in reaction to this post topic and the pictures posted containing 1800s mountain men. I do have afew questions for you:

"The reason for this is because the Canadian Milice absorbed them into their own units."

What do you have to support that? If French Canadians were engaged in the fur trade, especially illegally, do you really believe that 1. they'd just stop working and 2. they'd reported for military service, especially if they are out of reach of the government? Even if they did, wouldn't they have been mixed in with a unit assigned a specific task – that could have just been manual labor – and likely watered down because of that? I'll support that assertion shortly with some surprising numbers and statements.

"These coupled with those from further western areas would have been excellent for woodland warfare"

Having good woodland craft and being a good fighter are two different things. The Indians practiced warfare constantly – it was part of their culture long before the white man arrived. To say that any white men out trading or even living with the Indians were adept at this would be interesting to see some documentation on – aside from those captured and adopted by tribes, then recaptured by whites, I haven't see any.

CdB figures are the creation of figure companies employing sculptors that have no knowledge of the period, and often come across atrocious artwork (like that posted above) and gladly sculpt something that looks like that to sell to an unsuspecting marketplace. The same is often true of other figures they do as well.

"To say that they were not a factor or contributor in woodland warfare is just not true."

Other than the constant battles around Fort Ti, can your provide an example? There is no record, that I am aware of, beyond Braddock, of these troops being employed in combat in present day Western PA. The French really didn't need to employ them on raids as the Ohio Country Indians could do that on their own. If you have any references to milice along for those raids I'd be interested in learning more.

Quotes and numbers soon. Hope you are well my friend. :-)

I hesitate to quote from an Osprey book, but here goes:

"In Canada, every able-bodied man from 16 to 60 years of age was listed in his parish's company (note – if you didn't live in a parish, kind of hard to be listed and notified for call-up)and was liable to a number of obligatory military and civic duties. In theory, militiamen going to war were to be volunteers, outstanding bush fighters familiar with woodcraft, while less combatant militiamen would transport supplies. In practice, those better able to transport supplies were usually more numerous than the expert bush fighters."

"The total number of militiamen on active duty tended to be much smaller than the number mustered. Canadian militiamen had no pay or uniforms, but were armed and equipped by the government when on duty (think of this from a logistics standpoint of supplying ammunition, spare parts, etc.)….. In 1758 (height of the war) some 4,000 were called out, with 2,100 in eastern Canada (not the West!!!) and the rest mostly employed shipping supplies to garrisons in the Great Lakes and the west."

Ticonderoga 1758 Montcalm's victory against all odds, by Rene Chartrand, Illustrations by Patrice Courcelle.

It is kind of comical to read a bit further about the entire British army landing, setting up camp, then stealing away in the night to sail around the (surprised) French and Indian forces. So much for woodcraft. :-)

The next day, a large French scouting party of 350 men has lost their way in the woods (there is that missing woodcraft again, just within a short distance of their own fort) and blundered into the British in another classic (e.g., Braddock) meeting engagement. They were lost because their Indian guides had deserted them in the face of so many English (see my previous comments about the fickle Indians as allies).

In looking at the maps, both the milice and Colonial Marines were placed way back and on the right of the French lines, not in the works (where militia can sometimes be a better force – ala Bunker Hill). Not likely to do this if Montcalm didn't have his doubt about their ability.

According to Chartrand, about 1:45 some of the milice start to panic and start to run away. They only stopped when taken under fire by French gunners at the fort, and returned to their positions (I think we call that shaken in wargaming terms). The Marines moved off into the woods to skirmish with the British. That I can believe.

"All the effective male population of Canada, from fifteen years to sixty, was enrolled in the militia, and called into service at the will of the Governor. They received arms, clothing, equipment, and rations from the King, but no pay…

The best of them were drawn from the upper parts of the colony (again, not the West!!!), where habits of brush ranging were sill in full activity. Their fighting qualities were much like those of the Indians, whom they rivaled in endurance and the arts of forest warfare. As bush fighters they had few equals; they fought well behind earthworks, and were good at surprise or sudden dash; but for regular battle on the open field they were of small account, being disorderly, and apt to break and take cover at the moment of crisis. They had no idea of the operations of war….

In 1750 the militia of all ranks counted about thirteen thousand; and eight years later the number had increased to about fifteen thousand. Until the last two years of the war (1759-1760 when the war was largely in Canada), those employed in actual warfare were but few. Even in the critical year 1758 only about eleven hundred were called to arms, except for two or three weeks in the summer; though about four thousand were employed in transporting troops and supplies, for which service they received pay."

Montacalm and Wolfe, by Francis Parkman (still "the" seminal work on the period as far as I am concerned), page 215-216.

Hello Jim,
Since I came in late to this dance it may take me a few days or more to respond. I want to make sure I have the books, pages,people and quotes in order. I will warn you up front that what you consider your best sources, and what I consider my best sources are going to differ. One other thing Jim, before this goes any further. Don't hit me with the burden of proof falling all on my shoulders about whether something happened or existed, because I will come back with "prove to me it did not" :). The reason I say this is because being a former military person, not all things were documented. When I was in the Navy we had 2 different types of utility uniforms that we wore( each sailor had his preference to which he wanted to wear), and four different types of headgear that could be wore with each. Now if you were to tell me that because it was not documented it did not exist, I would have to start scratching my head because I wore one of those utilities. This is my biggest problem with saying what did exist or happened and did not. None of us were there and we can't say for sure one way or the other. Sometimes we have to rely on knowledge of the period, the people involved, their surroundings and lively hoods, and what was available to them and come up with a common sense hypothesis. If that be the case, when the smoke clears you will be holding the same ground that you held and I likewise.In order to make this beneficial to all on this board I am going to provide information from my sources to view and use at their own discretion. If there are some who don't agree with the info, no problem. I just really do not want to get into a debating session, because I trust my sources and stand firm in supporting them. Also I am very leery of statistics and numbers being accurate, even more so the further back in time you go. I am doing well now. I had a full knee replacement back in December and the operation went better than I expected. I have lost 50+ pounds and aiming for more. My church is really keeping me busy with teaching and serving. That is why I was a little hesitant on getting involved with this topic,but you know me. I will try to respond as much as possible, but I am preparing to teach a class at church in July, so it may be sporadic gunfire here and there, and sometimes you might hear a blast of a cannon. :) Sherry and I are going to try and make Fall In this year. Hope to see you and some of my old customers from the Loyalhanna Outpost, and others there. Well got to go watch the game. "LET"S GO PENS"!

Hey Keith:

Before you go spinning off on research, perhaps we should define what we are talking about. I can tell you what my original points were:

1. The term CdB does not appear in any OB of the period.

2. Milice did not dress in fringed buckskin, wear coon skin caps and have ZZ Top-like beards.

Watching the game now. :-)

2. Milice did not dress in fringed buckskin, wear coon skin caps and have ZZ Top-like beards.

I trust that is not a reference to our fragrant Duchess.

Keep going guys. I am learning stuff here.

"Go, er, whoever.. Whoop Whoop…yeah."