"United States Marine Corps Birthday" Topic

Today is the 244th anniversary of the founding of the US Marine Corps. It is the only military organization that I know of that was founded in a bar.

Semper Fi and Happy Birthday.

And before anyone asks, I placed it here as the Marines played a prominent part in US military operations in two wars during the period.

That old glitch again.

US Marine Corps in Napoleonic Era…fascinating. Halls of Montezuma and Shores of Tripoli I knew about…..1812 and 1815 I guess? Got me interested now.

WWI of course but WWII? Any presence in Europe other than Embassy Guards?

Deadhead, there were a handful in Europe. Not full units that I know of, but individuals--including one Marine in the OSS who walked into a bar in occupied territory, pulled a gun and demanded everyone drink a toast to the USMC. I'm sure an actual marine could give more details.

But pretty much skirmish and RPG territory. For tables full of marines you need to fight Japan.

The Marine Corps trained the US Army in amphibious operations and the entire Marine Corps, which expanded to six Marine divisions, was committed to the Pacific.

Joshua Barney's command at Bladensburg consisted of both sailors and Marines and they manned artillery as well as acting as infantry. Their resistance was significant in a battle where the militia mostly ran, except for Capt George Peter's artillery company that fought with Barney.

Captain Peter was the commander of the first American horse artillery company before the War of 1812.

Marines were also at New Orleans and, of course, aboard ship. The commander of the Marine detachment aboard the USS Constitution when she defeated the Guerriere was killed in action.

"If the army and the airforce,
should look into their latrines.
They will see there in the bottom,
the United States Marines."

Then a fight started. My Dad said it worked every time they wanted a punch up with US Marines.

Yes, those are fighting words!! Especially on their birthday!

Gawne's _Spearheading D-Day_ mentions a small USMC
presence at Normandy.

Well, Brian, that disgusting little ditty is what people who are jealous of the Marine Corps and its myriad accomplishments usually make up.

How many US marines surrendered when the Royal Navy captured the US Navy's fleet flagship, USS President, twice in 1815?

There was usually one marine aboard per gun, right?

The question should read 'How many US Marines were surrendered…'

Where did you find that the USS President surrendered in 1815?

And how did she 'surrender twice'?

And you left out that she was damaged coming out of harbor and was attacked by a British squadron.

And since you brought the topic up, how many Royal Marines were surrendered when the Guerriere, Java, and Macedonian were defeated? How many surrendered on Lake Erie and Lake Champlain when the British squadrons were destroyed?

By the way, 4c, Marines is always capitalized, whether it is singular or plural.

I was once criticized by one of my graduate professors, who was a retired US Air Force officer, that Marines is not a proper noun. When I corrected him, he made the comment that airman isn't capitalized. I told him that was his and the Air Force's problem, not mine or the Marine Corps'.

I always thought that no US man of war ever surrendered until the Mayaguez off North Korea. Or am I confusing it with the earlier incident off Cambodia?

Why did I not check before posting? What I have learnt is US Marines serving on board capital ships, just as in our RN, in OSS and many irregular units in Europe in WWII.

Yes…totally wrong. Mayaguez was a merchant ship but Us Marines killed in the rescue mission, indeed murdered, by the Khmer Rouge. USS Pueblo was the one I meant, still in N Korea

@ deadhead

Wasp, Chesapeake, Essex and President were all USN sloops or frigates that surrendered. Decatur in particular seems to have been a bit of a quitter. US frigates were generally larger than those of the Royal Navy, which largely explains their 1812 successes. After 1812, or when they faced an RN adversary of similar force as in the above cases, they did as well as you'd expect. These were the biggest ships they had because someone thought the militia equivalent of the warship was the gunboat and built mainly those. They tried to sortie and form raiding squadrons but never succeeded in breaching the blockade.

Something like 800 merchantmen were lost to American privateers, but three things usually forgotten are that British privateers reciprocated, that insurance rates barely changed, and that hundreds of American privateers were themselves captured in their turn. These were, as the name implies, non-naval vessels usually too small to be of much use, so many were just burnt.

The upside for the USA of the US eastern seaboard being so long was that it was a long stretch of coast for the RN to keep watch on. The downside was that it was easy, with command of the sea, for the British to carry out lengthy amphibious sorties inland. Burning the White House involved penetrating rivers 100 miles inland. These raids would be fun campaigns actually.

This is a good USNI read about the War of 1812:
link

My questions about marines on board is because IIRC the principle in the RN was one gun = one marine. So HMS Victory would have had 100, HMS Agamemnon 64, and so on. Whether the marine complements were as short-handed as the crews I don't know.

Heard that one and others Brian. I never had any feelings towards Marines one way or the other until my first joint task force event with them during President Reagan's state funeral.
Once I found out how easily riled up they tend to be, my time stationed in DC became thoroughly entertaining. That being said, my days of handing them crayons so they have something to snack on are long over.
Semper Fi and happy birthday

Wasp, Chesapeake, Essex and President were all USN sloops or frigates that surrendered.

Wasp had defeated Frolic, but was pursued and taken by a ship of the line after the action.

Chesapeake was not a well-trained ship, Lawrence being just a little too cocky to come out and fight Shannon and her expert skipper. Captain Broke was an excellent trainer and commander and might have had the best trained warship crew in the Royal Navy.

Essex was trapped in harbor by two British warships, specifically sent out to destroy her as Essex was wreaking havoc with the British whaling industry in the Pacific. Essex was armed with carronades and could not match the long guns of the two British ships that stood off and pounded her.

President was damaged in the hull coming out of harbor and was chased and caught by Endymion and the rest of her squadron.

In other mostly single ship actions, the US Navy took or destroyed the frigates Guerriere, Java, Macedonian, and the sloops/brigs, etc., Alert, Peacock, Boxer, Epervier, Reindeer, Avon, Cyane and Levant.

Oh, they must have been good in the Napoleonic Wars, they are rated as "grenadiers" in the R&E rules.

A bit of a quitter" seems a tad ungenerous for a man who won praise from Nelson, 4c.

I was taught gunnery at Ft Sill by a Marine instructor, and taught very well indeed. The notion of Marines as a separate and distinct corps has been one of those items of the common heritage that did both our countries good, although it fascinates me to see the very different ways the USMC and the Royal Marines evolved over the centuries. I cannot, for example, imagine Evelyn Waugh in the USMC in any capacity whatever, but it is clear he was a man of extraordinary courage, and his description of the Royal Corps of Halberdiers in the "Sword of Honor" trilogy is not only very clearly derived from the Royal Marines, it's one of the handsomest tributes ever paid by a writer to a fighting service.

@ nine pound round

It is, in paraphrase, Roosevelt's verdict. From the link:

When two lesser frigates closed in, one of which poured two broadsides into the President, Decatur surrendered. The two British ships were mainly armed with 18-pounders, versus the American frigate's 24- and 42-pounders, and in Theodore Roosevelt's estimation, the famous American commander "acted rather tamely, certainly not heroically" in not fighting it out with them.

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem."
¯ Ronald Reagan

Not really- Roosevelt's verdict was just a comment on the action, and not a putative summary of the man's character.

Ronald Reagan is now a source?

He is when he gives an excellent comment on the US Marine Corps-and an accurate one to boot.

At the Marine Corps Museum in Quantico, Virginia, the main hall has quotations about the Marine Corps from different people engraved in large letters around the hall. Reagan's is one of them.

It is, in paraphrase, Roosevelt's verdict. From the link:
When two lesser frigates closed in, one of which poured two broadsides into the President, Decatur surrendered. The two British ships were mainly armed with 18-pounders, versus the American frigate's 24- and 42-pounders, and in Theodore Roosevelt's estimation, the famous American commander "acted rather tamely, certainly not heroically" in not fighting it out with them.

What did the rest of the section on President's action against the Endymion, Pomone, Majestic, and Tenedos state?

Roosevelt's opinion of Decatur during the action against four British frigates does not coincide with how damaged the President was before the action when coming out of harbor and the damage that President inflicted on the Endymion during the action. And it should be noted that Endymion was a 24-pounder frigate.

Captain Hayes of the Majestic stated in his letter 'that both sides had fought with great gallantry.' And he returned Decatur's sword to him after the surrender.

What is the point of your posting?

"What is the point of your posting?"

And they say Americans don't do satire…..?

Regarding the USS President and Stephen Decatur, he was wounded twice during the engagement by shell splinters and three out of the four lieutenants on the ship were killed in the engagement.

@ Nine pound round

Roosevelt was commenting explicitly on Decatur's conduct. He did not take the opportunity to say that the tame and unheroic conduct of the battle was out of character.

AIUI Decatur made his reputation, such as it is, in large frigates fighting pirates in small ones. This wasn't the best preparation for facing the Royal Navy, for which he appeared to have little appetite.

No, he left the drawing of inferences to you. And also the freedom to generalize from a specific comment about a single action to a more sweeping conclusion about his character.

As I said; his courage and daring were praised by Nelson; I am sure his reputation will survive this thread.

Such as it is.

Roosevelt was commenting explicitly on Decatur's conduct. He did not take the opportunity to say that the tame and unheroic conduct of the battle was out of character.

Roosevelt was commenting on his impression of Decator in one action, which Decatur lost to a British squadron. And he left out the fact that Decatur had also been wounded.

Seems to me you're betting on one book, by a very young writer, and there are better naval histories of the War of 1812. I would suggest taking Roosevelt with a very large salt pill and consult other references as well.

AIUI Decatur made his reputation, such as it is, in large frigates fighting pirates in small ones. This wasn't the best preparation for facing the Royal Navy, for which he appeared to have little appetite.

Decatur made his reputations as a junior naval officer in the Barbary war fighting small ships with other small ships. He also led the raid that destroyed the captured US frigate Philadelphia in Tripoli harbor, an act that Nelson hailed as the most daring of the age.

And Decatur when captain of the US frigate United States fought, defeated, and captured the Royal Navy frigate Macedonian and brought her back to the US as a prize. It looks like Edward Preble taught his subordinate officers well in the Tripolitan War. They were the officers who captained the US frigates in the War of 1812 and established an excellent record in combat against the Royal Navy, winning much more often than not.

Regarding US Marine Detachments on US warships during the period 1798-1815, I have found a little on their strength. It is likely that the Marine Detachments aboard a US frigate were around 41 all ranks. Smaller ships, such as sloops, may have had detachments as large as 30 all ranks.

It doesn't appear that it was dependent on the number of guns the warship carried and undoubtly varied among the ships regardless of class or rate. It was probably dependent on the number of Marine that were available and the number of ships that required Marine detachments.

What was Nelson's opinion of Decatur's conduct in 1812 to 1815?

That is a very difficult question as Nelson was killed in action in 1805.

Why did you even ask that question?

"And they say Americans don't do satire."

Maybe not, but we do at least know that a failed joke doesn't get funnier with repetition.

Since the Navy still names ships after Decatur they must not think too little of him.

Lt. James Brooks USMC commander at the Battle of Lake Erie, KIA 10 September 1813.