"French Infantry. Plumes F&IW 1759" Topic
10 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not post offers to buy and sell on the main forum.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the French and Indian Wars Message Board Back to the 18th Century Discussion Message Board
Areas of Interest18th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile ArticleThe Editor takes a tour of resin scenics manufacturer Wargame Ruins, and in the process gets some painting tips...
Featured Book Review
|
42flanker | 17 Aug 2016 4:15 a.m. PST |
I am looking for evidence that French infantry at Quebec in 1759 were wearing plumes in their hats, specifically white plumes worn by Régiment Royal Roussillon. I can find some images of hats with white cockades (although not contemporary) but nothing else. |
Chokidar | 17 Aug 2016 4:58 a.m. PST |
I would be very sceptical of any suggestion that French line infantry wore any sort of plume in 1759. Cockades yes, certainly, plumes no. Cannot think of any source even remotely suggesting it, can think of numerous ones with just a cockade. C. |
zippyfusenet | 17 Aug 2016 5:39 a.m. PST |
What makes you think that happened, 42flanker? I've never heard of it. |
42flanker | 17 Aug 2016 7:00 a.m. PST |
There is a tradition associated with the 35th Regiment, later Royal Sussex, that they adopted a white plume to commemorate their repulse of the Royal Roussillon at Quebec in 1759 and the feathers they took from the fallen French. They wore this ornament until the tall cap with its 'regulation feather' was introduced in 1800. This tradition was commemorated in badges adopted by the Royal Sussex from 1879 onwards, whereby a token feather was added as part of the more conventional insignia of the regimental helmet/cap badge. The story is unlikely for two reasons. The first is that there is no evidence and very little likelihood of the 35th wearing a feather in their hats from circa 1759 onwards. Secondly, and more important, it would appear that the French weren't wearing white feathers anyway. What seems more probable is that the 35th, like a number of other British infantry regiments, adopted a regimental feather circa 1785-90 and, like a number of other regiments, they favoured white. An old general presenting new colours to the regiment in 1834, who had joined the 35th in 1791, clearly was witness to the wearing of white feathers. The colonel at the time, General Henry Fletcher, had been CO of the 35th at Quebec and it is easy to see, the way these stories tend to grow, how memories of white cockades became confused with white feathers and the tradition grew from there. Another regiment, the 5th had a very similar tradition regarding feathers collected after a victory over the French at St Lucia in 1778, although it seems possible that in that case the French were indeed wearing feathers and we do have images of the 5th wearing white feathers circa 1790, as well as other contemporary evidence. That white feather evolved into the red tipped hackle of the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers/Royal Regiment of Fusiliers |
42flanker | 17 Aug 2016 10:33 a.m. PST |
I forgot to ask: what about grenadier companies? |
Camcleod | 18 Aug 2016 7:43 p.m. PST |
Most maps of the battle lines show the 35th on the British right flank facing the French Militias toward the river. Royal Roussillon was further up the line facing the 28th Ft. So the Tradition seems a bit suspect. |
historygamer | 19 Aug 2016 10:26 a.m. PST |
I'm not aware of French wearing feathers in the hats during either war. I don't recall Chartrand's work (CMH and Osprey) showing that in any of his supporting art work either. I am also wondering about standardization of the French all wearing white cockades and if so, when that occured? I seem to recall something about cockades in Chartrand's Osprey book on French forces. IIRC, grenadiers were distinguished by moustaches, not feathers. There is mixed evidence on whether they brought their bearskins to North America during the F&I War. Might have been directed not to, but brought them anyway. |
42flanker | 19 Aug 2016 12:26 p.m. PST |
I think the Roussillon's role in the story is the least problematic detail. At least we know they were present on the Plain of Abraham! Accounts I have read place the two regiments opposite each other, adjacent the river bluffs, though nothing that specifically describes the 35th engaging the Royal Roussillon in the battle. The role of the Roussillon in the capitulation of the 35th at Fort William Henry the year before may well have led to a certain shaping othe narrative. I think the fact that the Royal Roussillon were not likely to have been wearing white feathers for the 35th to take as trophies, is the more definite stumbling block. We can add to that the fact that it is highly unlikely the 35th should have assumed an unofficial distinction, 20 years before the fashion for wearing non-regulation feathers emerged, during the AWI, and for it both to have gone unchallenged and not be mentioned in the Warrant of 1768 (in which the first official battle honour of the C18th does appear, that of the 15th Light Dragoons for Emsdorf in 1760) It is, however, a well-embedded tradition. There were officers serving in the 35th in 1791 who had been at Quebec in 1759, including the Colonel, Henry Fletcher, who had been C.O. that day, and could all have vouched for the origin of the feather being worn in the hats of the regiment thirty years later. This was the situation described by Lieut. Gen John Oswald in 1834, when as Colonel of the Regiment he addressed the 35th on the presentation of new colours following their being granted the title 'Royal Sussex'. He had joined the 35th as Captain of Grenadiers in 1791 and went on to command the Regiment for ten years. One could hardly ask for a more reliable lineage for a tradition that does not stand up to scrutiny. However, regimental traditon is a strange, slippery beast. It's intriguing. |
historygamer | 19 Aug 2016 1:08 p.m. PST |
What rank was Fletcher in 1759? |
42flanker | 20 Aug 2016 2:27 a.m. PST |
In 1759, Henry Fletcher was Lieutenant Colonel, having succeeded the unhappy Colonel Munro in command of 35th Regt. He was brevetted Colonel 20th June 1762. On 10th August 1764, he was appointed Colonel of the 35th: "This almost exceptional honour was conferred on Colonel Fletcher after only six years'service as Lieutenant-colonel of the regiment by His Majesty King George III." (A Historical Memoir of the 35th Regiment Richard Trimens, late Captain 35th Regiment, 1873) He was succeeded in command of the 35th by Lieutenant-colonel Thomas Hall. Promoted Major-general in 1772, Lieutenant-general in 1777 and General in 1793, he remained Colonel of the Regiment until his death in 1803. |
42flanker | 20 Aug 2016 11:10 a.m. PST |
Here is Henry Fletcher's own sketch of how the armies were drawn up on the Plains of Abraham on Sept 13th 1759.As Camcleod suggested, the Royal Roussillon indeed appear to have been drawn up opposite the 28th and the Louisburg Grenadiers. <https://archive.org/stream/sevenyearswarjou00flet#page/n93/mode/2up> This is to some sense a schematic, rather than showing the trajectory of the French advance. It has to be said that John Fortescue puts the Royal Roussillon on the left of the French line, as shown here: link link My guess is that the tradition of the 35th in relation to the Royal Roussillon at Quebec would have to relate to the advance after the British had delivered their decisive volleys, during which the Roussillon, according to Stephen Manning, made an effort to hold its ground, encouraged by Montcalm, "on a shallow ridge to the south of the Sillery Road" (Quebec: the Story of Three Sieges, 2009). That would be the most likely time the 35th, coming up on the British right, found themselves opposite their nemesis from 1757. The more I think of it, if the Roussillon had not been one of the French Regular regts at Quebec, the white feather tradition might not have evolved. |
|