"Colonial Rangers question" Topic

I know "Ranger" units predate the French and Indian wars. And that Rogers's was not unique. My question is how many different units were there? Did they all eventually fall under Rogers command? I ask this because I know people like Stark and Putnam can be interpreted from different sources as either/or independent companies or part of Rogers Rangers.

I cannot imagine any British commander foolish enough to place all Ranger units under his command.
And for the life of me I cannot fathom why the US Army Rangers should adopt him as a patron saint.
He was a drunk, and was prepared to sell his loyalty in the American Revolution to the highest bidder. The British "won" his services.

Can't agree, Winston. I think the modern day Rangers are more interested in his tactics and techniques, not his off duty behaviour. If we applied your standards, we'd have to disapprove of U. S. Grant for his drinking. And maybe Jackson for his extreme religious views. And Washington for being a slave owner (while fighting for freedom!). And Patton for slapping wounded soldiers.

Stop comparing apples and oranges.
Nothing in the three you mention rise to the heights of treason.
I disapprove of Jackson for his treatment of Indians, and couldn't care less about his religious views, which do not seem out of the ordinary for the time. Maybe you do, but I don't.

It's irrational to use the "If you think X, you must think Y" argument. It's also fallacious.

By the way, consult his Wikipedia biography and find worse.
link

He may have written a common sense guide, but I see little in his career to recommend him as a soldier. Incompetence, bad tactics, drunkenness, treason…..

Well, Winston is quite correct here.

Benjamin Church is the proper father for Rangers, as the Doodle Army would call them.

He did write a bio and campaign history, so they can go from there.

Rogers was a drunk, a Doodle traitor, and an otherwise unremarkable dirtbag. Church, not Rogers, is the proper father of US Army Rangers.

Eric

I disapprove of Jackson for his treatment of Indians, and couldn't care less about his religious views

I think he meant Stonewall, not Andrew.

Regardless. The analogy is still fallacious.
I don't care if he meant Michael, Jesse or Shoeless Joe.

Mr. Turbo Dog, on behalf of this Forum I apologize that your honest questions were ignored and your topic turned into a Robert Rogers hate-fest. I regret that I do not have the depth of knowledge on the highly specialized subject of American Rangers in the FIW so that I can adequately answer your questions. I fervently hope that some kind soul with more knowledge than I and more good sense than I see displayed here can chime in and give you the knowledge you seek. In the meantime you might want to consult Osprey's "American Colonial Ranger: The Northern Colonies, 1724-64" as a starting point.

They did not report all to Roger. You can check the Galloping Majors website as they have a nice article on the different ranger units.
link

Thanks Pete, I had forgotten about Galloping Major. Lots of great information in their "Painting Guide" section on provincial Rangers, Canadian Militia, and Huron and Mohawk warriors.

Lance (of Galloping Major) writes that the name Rogers Rangers "covers several Independent Companies paid by the crown under the overall command of Robert Rogers, but not as a unified battalion, rather serving with different armies and sub-divisions thereof often several hundred miles apart, over a period of several years."

To the best of my knowledge, other famous Ranger units, such as Gorham's, Dunn's New Jersey Frontier Guard, the various independent Ranger units mustered by Virginia, and Putnam's Connecticut Rangers operated independent of Rogers under provincial, not Crown, command.

There were many ranger coys. raised by the different colonies that had nothing to do with Rogers Rangers. They also predate Rogers Rangers. There were also Snowshoe companies.