Help support TMP

"Should CdB's Be Separate Units From Indians?" Topic

36 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.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the 18th Century Discussion Message Board

Back to the French and Indian Wars Message Board

Areas of Interest

18th Century

905 hits since 24 May 2018
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Okiegamer24 May 2018 8:33 a.m. PST

I have some Coeurs d'Bois figures that I plan to use for skirmish level gaming. My question is, "should they be organized as separate units or just mixed in with the Indians?" As I understand it, the CdB's were basically independent trappers and hunters, many of mixed French and Indian ancestry. They lived and worked among the Indians, and many were married into the tribes. So, in wartime practice, would they form as separate tactical units or just join in the "fun" as part of an Indian warband?

historygamer Supporting Member of TMP24 May 2018 8:42 a.m. PST

How were the actually used? Can you cite any instances?

Personal logo miniMo Supporting Member of TMP24 May 2018 8:46 a.m. PST

For skirmish gaming purposes, I tend to use them as individual characters. The figures can just be mixed into units of Indians or Milice for colour. Squad units of them are unlikely historically, but work fine if you like to be able to quickly identify different units on the table.

Okiegamer24 May 2018 9:14 a.m. PST

Well, I'm certainly not particularly well versed in this period, which is the main reason I posed the question. I do recall seeing some 19th century paintings (always of questionable accuracy, to be sure!) that depict them mixed in with Indians. Here is an example: link
My basic units represent squads (or war parties in the case of the Indians) and each have six figures. So I was thinking that, perhaps, one figure in every one or two units might be a C'dB.

Joes Shop Supporting Member of TMP24 May 2018 9:17 a.m. PST

I'm working on my 40mm Skirmish Project now: I plan on mixing them in (1 – 2) to my war parties also.

Personal logo miniMo Supporting Member of TMP24 May 2018 9:28 a.m. PST

If there are any historical accounts of the types of low-level skirmishing engagements that play so well on the gaming table, I haven't come across any yet. So, flavour to taste!

1–2 mixed into warbands works perfectly well. Provides solid plausibility for command control too since you have a good translator in the unit. Language barriers were a definite problem when large numbers of Indians from various tribes all showed up!

Lilian24 May 2018 10:35 a.m. PST

Coureurs des Bois you mean, runners of the woods, because hearts of woods is something for poetry or IKEA :)

Jakar Nilson24 May 2018 11:26 a.m. PST

Yeah, and they aren't even pronounced the same. "Cur da boa" for heart of wood vs. "Coorer dai boa" for runners of the woods. And you have to clip the "boa" to get an Anglo-Saxon approximation of "bois".

Winston Smith24 May 2018 11:33 a.m. PST

In the history of English speaking wargaming, NOBODY has ever gotten it right, nor agreed on how to spell it or what it means.

Winston Smith24 May 2018 11:35 a.m. PST

I chuckle when I think of CdB organized as "units".
It'd like asking about a Viking uniform.

Personal logo miniMo Supporting Member of TMP24 May 2018 11:52 a.m. PST

Not just gamers, even Victor Herbert waxed lyrical about Coureurs de Bois: YouTube link

And consistent spelling is certainly not an eighteenth century ideal!

A group of them is more like a semi-autonomous collective…

Frederick Supporting Member of TMP24 May 2018 12:40 p.m. PST

I would think a mixed "unit" would be reasonable as long as you have a very broad definition of the term unit

Winston Smith24 May 2018 1:26 p.m. PST

"Unit". N. A bunch of guys more or less working together for a common goal. Sort of.

Doug MSC Supporting Member of TMP24 May 2018 1:37 p.m. PST

Mix one half teaspoon of Indians with one quarter teaspoon of Coureurs de Bois, add a pinch of Canadian militia and an eighth teaspoon of French Marines. Mix well and place on a medium heat for 5 minutes. Scatter them in the woods and see what happens when the British come marching by.

historygamer Supporting Member of TMP25 May 2018 6:14 p.m. PST

Anyone with some facts? Anyone? Lol

Bowman28 May 2018 4:51 p.m. PST

So, in wartime practice, would they form as separate tactical units or just join in the "fun" as part of an Indian warband?

I think what Historygamer is getting at is the assumption that the Coureur des Bois formed some kind of military units during the French and Indian wars. The only warfare that affected the CdB was the intermittent warring between their Huron, Ottawa, Algonquin,etc trading partners and members of the Iroquois Five Nations confederacy. If the Indians were at war, then movement down the waterways and trapping became a risky business venture. There were small scale combats between Iroquois or Mohawks and the Coureur des Bois as one can read about Radisson and his adventures.

If you think they formed units and firing lines like the French and British regulars, well I don't think that ever happened.

Some Coureur des Bois did fight in the French and Indian wars and even in the AWI. But they did so as individuals, and not as part of CdB units.

historygamer Supporting Member of TMP30 May 2018 9:15 a.m. PST

Actually I'd welcome any period account of them fighting at all. I know wargamers swear by them but I'm not aware of any period reference in combat.

Personal logo miniMo Supporting Member of TMP30 May 2018 11:31 a.m. PST

Finding documentation would be rather difficult. But the probability that some saw combat seems reasonable.

They were unlicensed traders. As able-bodied adult citizens of New France they are automatically part of the Milice and subject to be called up for active service if they can be found. If called up, I would not expect to find any notation that they were Coureurs des Bois. Presuming that any did see duty, representing them in their wilderness clothes is a perfectly fine artistic choice for the entertainment purposes of the gaming table.

Some of them married native women, some in polygamous marriages. It is not unreasonable to suppose that they might turn out to fight with the tribe they married in to. Again, there would be no expected documentation of this.

In rare circumstances, noted individuals do enter the historical record.

Pierre Gaultier de Varennes and his sons did serve in the military, but did not see combat in the war, they were exploring and building forts out west.

Jacques Baby served as a Captain (in regulation uniform) with the British in the AWI, and after the war served as Lt-Col of the Detroit Militia. There is no record of service in the Old French War. Considering his appointments as an officer with both sides, I am willing to presume that he gained some combat experience during his time in Pennsylvania as Indian Agent for New France.

Luc de la Corne was an interpreter for Montcalm during the siege and massacre at Fort William Henry (and dismissed following that). He also served as an interpreter for Burgoyne in the Saratoga campaign. I'm certainly willing to use some artistic license to depict him in wilderness clothing and armed. Whether or not he fought directly in combat, he was present during both of those battles.

Bowman30 May 2018 3:41 p.m. PST

So we always have to play actual historical re-fights? We can't play made up scenarios or "what if" games? Look, the opening of The Revenant is totally made up. So what is wrong with playing it with toy soldiers?

Bowman30 May 2018 4:00 p.m. PST

Actually I'd welcome any period account of them fighting at all.

Like MiniMo says, that would be very hard

I know wargamers swear by them but I'm not aware of any period reference in combat

Whatever. Look, let's take one battle Beauport. Repentigny is in command of 800 volunteers. Under Lιvis there is a mixed battalion consisting of Montreal militia and Compagnies Franches de la Marine. The reserve unit is another mixed battalion of Montreal militia and Trois Riviθre militia.

So do you know what all these volunteers and militia did for a living? None of them could be involved in the fur trade? You don't mind if I use my militia/CdB figures for this, do you?

historygamer Supporting Member of TMP30 May 2018 4:11 p.m. PST

Well by definition they were all from the Montreal militia region. I'm sure many were involved in the fur trade but that does not make them cdb. Look, your army, do what you want. But did you ever consider that maybe there is no info on them for a reason? I know, heresy among many F&I gamers, but there has always been a bit of a fantasy streak in the gaming period.

historygamer Supporting Member of TMP30 May 2018 4:21 p.m. PST

Mini: What you say is not unreasonable, but I think you stretch it a bit with the term "wilderness clothing." Given that the Indians were likely wearing western cloth in many instances, using the same logic wouldn't any men fielding with militia units do the same? Also, this was largely a clean shaven time period. Certainly so for the Indians. Wouldn't these men look the same? Too often gamers use something that looks like Jeremiah Johnson, which is from a later fur trade period.

Further, realistically, how many people men would you really be talking about? One? Two? I mean in relationship to a game.

historygamer Supporting Member of TMP30 May 2018 4:24 p.m. PST

Bill Protz, who used to lurk on here, used to disdainful of the notion of cdb.

Personal logo miniMo Supporting Member of TMP30 May 2018 9:39 p.m. PST

I would certainly hope that expressed disdain for what other gamers do would remain largely limited to the Napoleonics Board, and not creep down here to the Eighteenth Century Discussion!

I have not done any particular research on Coureurs des Bois grooming habits, but my gathered impression was that even from the late 1600's early 1700's they were noted for having beards, and that was the primary way to tell them from the Indians. I recall reading that the 'Pelican girls' had to adjust to that when they arrived in Louisiana, but could not vouch for the source. A clean-shaven time period, but these are folks who are noted for their anti-authoritarian bent and risk life and limb for personal freedom as much as for hopes of profit.

For the gaming table, I prefer the Jeremiah Johnson look so I can identify the figures rather than noting 'that one over there with the raised tomahawk who looks like everyone else is a Coureur des Bois'. The fringe-clad bearded hippies of the wilderness stand out in a crowd.

For the same reason, I prefer my French Grenadiers in bearskins — going on the theory that bears were readily attainable over here (especially if you're friendly with the CdB's!); and that bearskin hats are much easier to find on the table than going hunting for the unit in tricornes with the dapper (but tiny) mustaches.

I also paint my Napoleonics in dress uniforms, and Carolingians in Carolingian helmets. Romantic myth is also a very real cultural perception of warfare as evidenced in art through the ages.

As for likely numbers, it's guesstimate to taste.

For this period, I do skirmish gaming. At least one or two fit in just fine. If the skirmish is part of a larger campaign with lots of Indians in the field, then it can be as many as seem might cluster in this corner of the engagement.

Fort Henry 1757, the Osprey book estimates about 1,800 Indians from 18 different tribes, some in multiple different 'groups' from the same tribe bringing the total count to 41 'groups'. Tribal/Group sizes ranging from 3 to 90. At the extreme end of deploying 1 CdB/Group allows for quite a lot of them. I would never be gaming that entire force, but including 1 Coureur de Bois in each different Group of 3–90 Indians (perhaps 2 in a group of 25-50 which is about the largest I would field on the tabletop) suits my tastes. Possibly 1 or 2 with the New French forces as well.

That number is certainly high, but for game purposes it not only provides colour, but also possible channels of communication that are easy to track if that is important in the scenario.

And even if only 4 of the 18 different tribes had a Coureur with them, and I have 4 different groups on the table, — they can be the 4 groups in this corner of the battle that my skirmish game is covering.


historygamer Supporting Member of TMP31 May 2018 3:35 a.m. PST

Your army, do what you want. But as far as having any factual basis in history…..

Bowman31 May 2018 5:25 a.m. PST

Well by definition they were all from the Montreal militia region. I'm sure many were involved in the fur trade but that does not make them cdb

I'll turn that on it's side. Almost all the CdB that are known by name and have a history were based in Montreal. For some, like the Baby brothers, it was Quebec city. And no, Trois Rivieres is not from the Montreal region. It was an independent city equidistant from Quebec City and Montreal. According to scholar Richard White, the officials of New France expected the CdB to settle permanently in the lands between Montreal and Quebec City as the clergy wanted to minimize marriage and cohabitation with the Indians.

Too often gamers use something that looks like Jeremiah Johnson, which is from a later fur trade period.

Not in Canada. By the time the FIW rolled around the CdB were already severely in decline. This started when the colonial ministers began demanding the CdB purchase "conges" or legal trading licenses (late 1600's). The government went so far as to rename the traders "voyageurs". Soon a legal, licensed trader was the voyageur and the CdB represented the illegal, unlicensed version. There were penalties to deal with them. Such heavy handed policies as that is why two of the most famous CdB, the brothers in law Radisson and des Groseilliers, began to trade with the British. They were known as "Radishes and Goosberries" thereafter to English speakers, if my public schooling can be trusted. So in reality by the time of the FIW there were no CdB (at least according to French officials).

Your army, do what you want. But as far as having any factual basis in history…..

How condescending. Look, if I'm putting on the Battle of St. Foy, I suppose the players want an accurate as possible reproduction on the table. So to the best of my ability I will have the proper orders of battle and the proper terrain and proper deployment. No one is arguing that. But most of my actual games are made up scenarios. That doesn't mean I use Space Marines and Dragons. It means I will make up a scenario, and forces and conditions that mimic the actual history and conditions of the time. I will work in the models I have. This is a problem?

As far as that goes, thanks but I don't need the input from self appointed "experts" of toy soldiering. Really, you care about how many Cour des Bois MiniMo has on his tabletop?

Joes Shop Supporting Member of TMP31 May 2018 7:33 a.m. PST

It is my understanding that Canadian Militia were organized by Parish so men would have to be listed on Parish rolls in order to be called up.

My assumption is that the typical CdB would not be associated with a local Parish although there could be exceptions.

If anyone has more info please share it.

Re Bill Protz: in his 'Drums of War Along The Mohawk' he discusses Canadian Militia but does not list CdB as either an organization or a Troop 'type'.

I think it's perfectly feasible to include CdB within Indian War Bands.

Bowman01 Jun 2018 6:24 a.m. PST

My assumption is that the typical CdB would not be associated with a local Parish although there could be exceptions.

According to the government of New France, you'd be wrong, at least on paper. Their permanent addresses were supposed to be maintained within the parishes between Montreal and Quebec City. What that means in reality is anyones's guess.

White, Richard (1991). The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


You can buy the paperback now for a measly $60. USD Lol

Re Bill Protz: in his 'Drums of War Along The Mohawk' he discusses Canadian Militia but does not list CdB as either an organization or a Troop 'type'.

I don't think anyone was arguing to the contrary. I can't speak for MiniMo but I find it odd that I would get chastised over using CdB miniatures in a fictional scenario because Bill Protz was "disdainful" of them. For the record, I don't own any CdB miniatures for my FIW forces. I have plenty of militia/armed civilians, Indians and regular troops of both sides. I just find the haughty, patronizing attitude of some to be bewildering.

Joes Shop Supporting Member of TMP01 Jun 2018 7:29 a.m. PST


"According to the government of New France, you'd be wrong…"

Understood. So, would they be enrolled in / called up with the local militia – ?

"I don't think anyone was arguing to the contrary."

Agreed. I was a member of the SYW Association when Bill was the editor and corresponded with him. I don't recall him being "disdainful" of CdB.

My only point in mentioning his rulebook is that he did not list them as an organized force.

Personally, from an historical perspective (only) I would like to know more about their actual involvement in the war.

As far as gaming goes I completely agree with you.


historygamer Supporting Member of TMP01 Jun 2018 8:31 a.m. PST

Thank goodness Bowman is here to correct us all, or at least those that he likes to correct – even though he agrees with them. Now that makes sense. (rolling eyes).

The original poster came on here and asked about CdB units. I asked for facts, which, other than Bowman agreeing with my point that a.) they did not exist as units, and b.) there is no documentation of such a creature fielding with Indians – no one else had anything factual to add to the discussion. Lots of opinions, and closely held beliefs, but other than that….

The flaws in some logic used here to justify such units is staggering, but not surprising. Let me see – these CdB were anti-social, anti-authority, perhaps breaking the law by illegally trading in furs, lived with tribes – but apparently to some – they rallied to the government's call to arms (something not even all the Indians did), and after living with the tribes (were they adopted?), they still looked like (according to some) – Charleton Heston in the movie "Mountain Men." So to recap – they had mythical woodland powers, wore 19th century beards and clothing (I mean, what's a CdB without buckskin fringe, right?), and came out to fight on behalf of the society that viewed them as outlaws and illegal fur traders. Got it. Makes perfect sense now.

Being haughty? Not really. Having fun tweaking a few closely held wargaming myths? Likely. Hoping for some factual evidence. Certainly. For all his trying to curry favor with the mythical CdB crowd, Bowman is spot on in rejecting the idea (for those that missed that). But he did miss one thing in trying to cast me as the bad guy – I never ever mentioned simply re-fighting historical battles. If so, please cut and paste (don't waste your time looking). But again, Bowman points out he has none of these figures in his own collection. He stated why, for those that missed that too.

In regards to Bill, never worked with him on anything related to the SYWA, but I did work with him at F&I re-eanctment events. He made the statement to me while we were meeting at Jumonville to plan an event. I have the utmost respect for Bill, though we lost touch many years ago. He made the comment about CdB not being in an OB as they didn't exist.

I think what F&I gamers often conflate are the myths and realities of fur trappers of the 17th and 19th century and Canadian Colonial Marine officers fielding with the Indians during the F&I period (well documented) in order to hopefully guide the Indians to achieve French military designs – usually to mixed results. Colonial Marine officers, on occasion, fielded with the Indians. Like many Marine officers, their own background and experienced varied.

Now, as I said before, I really don't care what you put on your wargaming table (another misrepresentation by Bowman about my posts). But if someone comes on TMP asking for facts, why are some so hostile to that? Curious that. And no Bowman, my post was not condescending. Please don't project your own feelings of inadequacies onto me. I'm just looking for a good discussion and to share what I know, and readily admit to what I don't. Or, to quote you from a previous post, don't get your panties all in a bunch.

Please return to your regularly scheduled programming. :-)

Bowman01 Jun 2018 12:30 p.m. PST

Understood. So, would they be enrolled in / called up with the local militia – ?

No idea. One can assume if they were home, they'd be called up to defend their parish.

Agreed. I was a member of the SYW Association when Bill was the editor and corresponded with him. I don't recall him being "disdainful" of CdB.

It was HG's comment of May 31that it was addressed to.

My only point in mentioning his rulebook is that he did not list them as an organized force.

I'd agree with that assessment.

Personally, from an historical perspective (only) I would like to know more about their actual involvement in the war.

Well by the time the FIW rolled around, the heady days of the CdB were over. The ones who traded in the traditional territories were now residents of New France and licensed agents of the colonial regime, now known as Voyageurs. Those that balked at these restraints continued their independent ways, but much farther out west. Or they found new markets, such as the British. This is how Rupert's Land was developed and how the Hudson Bay company started. So by the mid 1700's there would be few CdB left to take part in the FIW conflict.

On a table top I doubt a Coureur des Bois, a voyageur, a Metis, a trapper or a trader would look that different from each other. I'm sure they fought in the FIW, but not in organized groups or units. I doubt anyone can say that they did not fight in the local militias or in Indian bands. They had excellent woodsman skills and were handy with a rifle. Why wouldn't they defend their lands?

Joes Shop Supporting Member of TMP01 Jun 2018 1:55 p.m. PST

Bowman: understood and thanks.

Personal logo miniMo Supporting Member of TMP06 Jun 2018 11:48 a.m. PST

Being haughty? Not really. Having fun tweaking a few closely held wargaming myths? Likely.

Historygamer, I presume it is not your intention to be haughty or rude, but the eye-rolling and lol-ing does read as very haughty on forums. It also reads as being rude to other posters on forums.

But if someone comes on TMP asking for facts, why are some so hostile to that?

I do not read any hostility to facts in any of the posts in this thread.

I for one am quite in favour of historical facts, although I am certainly not constrained to only follow positively verified data when so much of history has to be inferred from limited surviving knowledge. I supported the gaming use of CdB figures with the known facts that they married into native tribes and that they were used in campaigns as translators.

Of course there will be no record of native muster rolls, and no militia records will record any draftee's employment as 'unlicensed fur-trader'. So no, their appearance in battle cannot be positively documented. The possibility of their appearance in battle is a reasonable inference.

it does read like you might be hostile to others accepting probability in history for use on the gaming table.

I also stated that I use the existing CdB figure sculpts for ease of identifying the figures on the table if it is useful to know which figures possess particular woodcraft skills or simply for a dash of colour. Also, I stated that I am not averse to presenting the very real cultural images of heroic myths in my tabletop games. The myth itself is not a closely held belief of mine; nor do I read any other poster here supporting any closely held belief.

historygamer Supporting Member of TMP06 Jun 2018 12:18 p.m. PST

Nope, not being haughty, etc. I assure you. I am a bit frustrated (is that the right word?) at the repeated leaps to myth for some wargame units in this period as you just don't see it in other gaming periods. At least I haven't.

The myth and look of the fabled CdB are well versed on this board, as well as in many games that appear in pictures and conventions. I love the period. Grew up in the heart of it in Western PA. Researched and re-enacted it for decades. Worked with and for several museums. I have worked with many of the leading researchers of the period.

I think Bowman did an excellent job detailing what did and did not occur. Again, I just find it personally frustrating that this period for gaming seems to revert, so often, to such mythology and misrepresentation. As I said, your army, do as you please (not referring to you specifically).

Please note, I do not refute the fact that some (likely few) Canadian milice had advanced woodcraft abilities. Not whole units.

On a somewhat related matter, use of such wargame figures ranks right up there with games where you seen an English settlement being raided by French, etc, and defended by British grenadiers, etc. As a friend of mine who games and re-enacts French Colonial Marines said, where did that happen? Again, your games, do as you please. But I just don't see this sort of thing happening in other gaming periods.

The employment and success/failure of militia units on both sides is well documented, and while a particular individual might have had advanced abilities, overall, it would not seem enough to affect the outcome of any particular battle.

Having recently finished Baker's book on the VA frontier, the Indian raids seemed to do everything in their power to avoid elements of the VA Regiment, and instead prey on the frontier settlers – women and children in particular (note, no British grenadiers involved there). While one French Colonial Marine officers was captured during one of the raids (would you rank him as CdB??), he was, a.) a commissioned French Officer, and b.) captured perhaps denoting a lack of woodland skills.

That said, I am completely open to anyone having something factual to post on the matter of CdB, Milice accompanying raids, etc.

In regards to Milice, my reading has led me to believe that they were employed for very specific roles (usually to help move supplies and once there, perhaps to lend a hand at strengthening fortifications, etc.) but were only deployed for a very short time period.

There was a large raid on the VA frontier, apparently out of Detroit, but the details are lacking so far on the composition of the raiding force.

In regards to French/Canadians living with tribes – I am unclear if they lived as white men living near or adjacent to a village, or were living in the village, as an adopted brother. If the later, then they likely took on the look and dress of the tribe (see examples of captured Englishmen adopted by tribes) and therefore would be rather indistinguishable from the rest of the members of the tribe. Again, I base that on my readings from the periods.

Personal logo miniMo Supporting Member of TMP06 Jun 2018 7:12 p.m. PST

You'll find romantic and/or mythological use of figures in every period of gaming starting from the Chariot Age. Hittite 3-man chariot crew based on Egyptian paintings when prevailing historical analysis goes for the 3rd as a runner hitching a ride on the approach to battle. Early Bedouin armies riding camels in 1500BCE based on Jewish mythology written down c.200BCE when the earliest archaelogical evidence for camel riding dates c.1000BCE. Entire Roman armies with red shields because Hollywood. Figures in Roman Slave Revolt armies depicted in full gladiatorial kit. And so on through the ages.

All have their place in the entertainment of gaming.

Heck, Stone Age gaming can easily slide into having dinosaurs on the tabletop.

The eighteenth century is not unduly put upon in this regard!

historygamer Supporting Member of TMP08 Jun 2018 5:35 a.m. PST

I will defer to your expertise on the earlier periods and problems you see there with myths creeping into games.

There is nothing wrong with playing myths in a game – it is a game after all – but it sure helps the subject of military history if people understand and can separate myth from reality. Otherwise people perpetuate myths and spout it off as junk history. I love history. Not everyone does. I love doing research. Not everyone does. Putting a historic force – even in a made up battle – is important to me and some others. Not everyone feels that way.

I feel that it is a good thing in online discussions to raise such points, even if others don't. At least they have the history, or what is known – which might change at some point with new research. I don't know it all. I often look to see what others know and can add to my knowledge of periods I game and re-enact.

The idea that some Frenchmen or French Canadians may have had more woodcraft that others seems reasonable. The same could be said about some Englishmen and American colonists too.

I do know for a fact that at least Virginia created special companies of rangers in their provincial forces. I can't say the same for New France. I also know that during the war the English and Provincials created additional special forces (e.g., Rogers Rangers, Gorham's Rangers, Smith's Black Boys, British Light Infantry, etc.). I am not aware that any were created on the other side, but then again, I just might not know about them.

We know that the French allied Indians raided the frontiers heavily. Less clear (at least to me) are what French and Canadian forces accompanied them into the field. We do know how well the Canadian militia performed at some key battles around Quebec and how French and Canadian forces performed at other battles (Lake George, Braddock's Defeat, Grant's Hill, outside Fort Niagara, etc.). It is a mixed record at best, often not so good. Colonial militia did not perform any better (read, "Soldiers When they Want to Be" about the VA militia).

Further, it is difficult to assess the French and Canadian role in some of those victories versus their Indian allies. In fact, many of the French victories could reasonably be argued to be more Indian victories with minor French and Canadian support. Given the numbers of each in key battles, and the type of battles fought, perhaps not surprising. What role any French or Canadians living with/near/etc. the Indians is pretty much speculation or perhaps just myth.

Again, do you what you want in your own game, but I think it does a disservice to historical facts/discussion and the memories of the men who fought to confuse the two. Just my opinion. Opinions may vary. :-)

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.