"SYW British Marines" Topic

Naturally, this followed from a discussion of FoW, but it was in the Lounge.
Anyway, I was idly Googling "Admiral Byng", and came up with this lovely illustration of the poor guy's fate:

cichw.net/pmtime4.html

Some nice period illustrations of SYW Marines.

I don't know why but the name "Byng" always makes me laugh.

I do like pictures of wooden ships knocking bits off one another, too. So ta, John.

David Garrick looks like he's just been caught at something he shouldn't be doing by the Paparazzi.

You have to hand it to those Paparazzi in the Age of Reason. Talented chaps. Had to paint real fast.

I liked this one:

"The Monmouth, 64 guns, under Captain Gardiner, 470 men, took the Foudroyant, 84 guns, under the Marquis de Quesne, 880 men. This action took place during the night. The casualties of the Foudroyant were 190 killed and wounded; those of the Monmouth, 27 killed, including her Captain, and 79 wounded. "When morning dawned the Captain of the Frenchman is said to have burst into tears on seeing to what a small ship he had struck his colours."

A man not afraid to show his feelings…

A historian would look at that picture and wonder if Byng's execution was essentially determined by the lack of discretion in punishment for officers, or by popular backlash against the loss of Minorca.

A wargamer looks at the picture and wonders if he can get away with using Hanoverian grenadiers for the marines.

For a contemporaries view on the execution, take a look at Voltaire's Candide. If memory serves me correct, this is the execution Candide witnesses on his arrival in England. Of course the names were changed, but Voltaire's view on the situation is interesting to say the least!

OFM

Nice link but I have a question. They are on a ship and shooting Byng but are they real Marines? The firing party have grenadier style caps and blue facings and breeches. The problem is that the Marines did not become Royal until 1802 and thus would not have had blue facings until that time. During the AWI the Marines had white facings and had battalion men in hats, the addition of grenadier and light companies was an innovation (IIRC) when the provisional marine battalions were formed in Boston.

The corps had only been re-raised in 1755 to make up for the marine battalions disbanded in 1748. So I have to ask the question as to whether Byng's executioners are ‘real Marines' as opposed to grenadiers (or even fusiliers) from a line unit acting as (‘ersatz') marines. Bizarre as it seems this was a common practice at various points in the C18th. The Britannia badge of the former Royal Norfolk Regiment (the 9th Foot) is supposed to commemorate just such a period of marine service.

Anyone any thoughts?

They were probably "acting marines".

Hey! Don't ask *me* any questions! I just found this link while researching "pour encourager les autres"! 8^)
I have no clue when the painting was done, if they are really Martian Space Marines in Bavarian service, or if that's really Samuel Johnson being shot.

It's also possible that this is a much later picture with the artist having 1. a current Royal Marine uniform (for the facings) and 2. a print of a period (non-Marine) uniform and sort of melding the two. Often the popular pres wasn't too careful about such things. I have seen a late Victorian print purportedly of the 17th Light Dragoons in action in America during the AWI where they are dressed and armed as lancers!

Well of course!! They WERE lancers in late Victoria! Where had Londoners heard of them?! Balaclava, of course!
So I have to agree, let's look into it. Not that I put it upon the OFM to research the painting, as I do indeed find it interesting, but what say we take a look into it and see what we can find.

Primary sources only please..:)

I did a whole load of research on the Marines of the SYW (inspired by the RAFM marine figure) a number of years ago, mainly at the Royal Marines Museum in Southsea. I even had a copy of a colour print from a very early reference book. However I can't put my hands on it at the moment. When I do I'll post it here if anyone is interested.

All Marines (not officers) of the period were issued with Caps which very much resembled Grenadiers Mitre caps but were not as tall. This led (together with their fighting spirit) to the French calling the Marines "the little Grenadiers". However a number of modern sources have suggested that in combat the Marines wore Tricorns. I personally have seen no evidence for this though it seems possible. For formal occasions, such as the execution of an Admiral, they would certainly have worn the issued caps. My research however suggested that the Caps had white facings with a crown & anchor badge. The Caps in the picture appear to have blue facings.

Incidentally I recall seeing a nearly identical black & white image (poss. a woodcut or engraving?) which clearly identified the troops of the firing squad as marines.

I would love to see a small range of Marines of the period in 28mm to complement the existing excellent ranges (Conquest, Front Rank etc.). At their request I sent Foundry a copy of all my research a number of years ago, when they were contemplating a range, but of course nothing ever happened. Some time ago I spoke to the guys from Redoubt & they intimated they would be doing some. Given the rate at which their FIW range is growing we should have them by about 2030!

Cheers

I have the Old Glory Pirate range marines, which are lifted directly from Funcken. The coat is similar, but the cap is different.
Supposedly the mitre cap was to allow them to climb rigging without knocking their hat off. This is similar to the cap vs tricorne thing for slinging grenades.

Here is a Field of Dreams scenario for any SYW manufacturer: If you cast it, I will buy.

John, Toby et al.

The painting is an C18th original and forms part of the collection at Greenwich in the National Maritime Museum. The following link has the details.

link

The following link is to an article (Standing Orders for the Royal Marines c.1755 – 1765) by Keith Raynor that originally appeared in C18th Notes & Queries. It is a copy of the division standing orders for the Marines in Portsmouth together with some comments on uniforms for the Chatham and Plymouth Divisions.

link

It is quite useful, showing that the marines had white facings (e.g. see comments for the Plymouth Division in 1764) and initially had caps (presumably the grenadier style) and subsequently were issued with hats in the late 1760s. This agrees with what Toby has posted. The late 1760s entries also show that the marines in the Plymouth Division were moving towards a uniform comparable to that specified in the 1768 Warrant for the line.

But it still leaves the problem that the firing party in the picture has blue breeches and caps with a blue grounding. These are both features of a unit with blue facings. The cuffs seemingly show a large amount of white lace on a dark, presumably blue ground although this detail is far from clear. It is not possible to make out any details of the lapels.

This in turn implies that the ‘marines' in the picture are drawn from a unit other than the Corps of Marines who would have worn grenadier style caps and coats faced white. The ‘marines' have a grenadier style cap (pity we cannot see the front clearly) but do not have the ‘belly box' cartridge pouch shown on the Morier paintings of the Guards and Line grenadiers. Nor do the firing party have ‘wings' on the shoulder of the coat although not all the grenadiers depicted by Morier have wings.

Throwing this together I suspect that the firing party is made up of fusiliers from one of the regiments so designated i.e. the 7th (Royal), 21st (Royal North British) or 23rd (Royal Welch) regiments. This still makes them marines i.e. soldiers serving on a warship but they are not Marines as in members of the Corps of Marines.

The OG pack of marines is based on the illustrations of the marine battalions in the 1742 Clothing Book. They were raised in 1741 and disbanded in 1748 at which point the line regiments were re-numbered to occupy the empty slots (e.g. Lee's 55th regt became the 44th etc.). This is why an order in 1820 specified that when the Royal Marines (as they had become from 1802) should rank in precedence after the 49th Regt when on parade with the Army. If however the Royal Navy is also present the Royal Marines parade on the right of the line with the Senior Service. The grenadier caps and cut of the uniform illustrated for the marine regiments are somewhat old fashioned in style when compared to the line regiments in the Clothing Book.

Thomas Mante wrote:

:During the AWI the Marines had white facings and had battalion men in hats, the addition of grenadier and light companies was an innovation (IIRC) when the provisional marine battalions were formed in Boston.:

***This is incorrect. Grenadier and light companies existed prior to 1775. What may have occured there is the standing up of flank companies from the hat companies present. I am not sure, but know they sent back to England for the bearskins for the grenadiers.

"The corps had only been re-raised in 1755 to make up for the marine battalions disbanded in 1748."

***This is correct, and they stayed in existance after this to present day. Grenadiers wore they hat cords to the right, prior to getting bearskins, or perhaps when not wearing them. Light infantry and bearskin from the period exist.

"So I have to ask the question as to whether Byng's executioners are ‘real Marines' as opposed to grenadiers (or even fusiliers) from a line unit acting as (‘ersatz') marines. Bizarre as it seems this was a common practice at various points in the C18th. "

****Hard to say, but it is equally hard to imagine that they didn't use admiralty troops to perform this execution too. The facings and hats should be white, with red breeches and waistcoats. They should also have lace too.

Jim McGaughey
HM Marines (Rev War re-enactment unit)

Gentlemen,

First let me say that the depth of knowledge by members of this board never ceases to amaze me!

Thomas, thanks for the great links. I think the primary source for the C18th Notes & Queries link may well be the one I found. I note they acknowledge the help of the Royal Marines Museum, which as stated was where I did my research.

Reading the notes on the National Maritime Museum site they mention a similar engraving. This may well be the one I recall seeing. They state that current thinking is that the painting is based on the earlier black & white engraving. I suspect that the troops are in fact Marines, the uniform details seems correct, but that when the painting was done some years later the artist having no colour reference simply got the colours slightly wrong.

When I find my original material I will post it together with an article from a very old (20+ years) "Military Modelling" (a UK based modelling magazine) about the earlier, pre SYW Marines.

I still want some figures though!

Cheers

****Hard to say, but it is equally hard to imagine that they didn't use admiralty troops to perform this execution too.

TM: Jim I do not see why they would have preferentially used Admiralty personnel. It would surely be determined by the kind of troops available on HMS Monarch at the time and also by whose turn it was to do duty. Use of Line troops as marines was a common phenomenon in the late C17th and C18th. For example a detachment of the 23rd RWF actually served as marines late summer and early fall of 1778.

*****The facings and hats should be white, with red breeches and waistcoats. They should also have lace too.

TM. Exactly! The uniform depicted for the firing party is WRONG for the Corps of Marines in 1757(date of the event) and 1760 (approx date of the painting). Two possibilities exist; either the artist got it wrong and painted the wrong facings etc. OR he painted an accurate representation, in which case the firing party is made up of Line troops (I suspect possibly fusiliers) acting as marines.

Without further documentary evidence it is not possible to give a definitive answer either way.

Toby,

Please do post up your information when you unearth it I am sure everyone would be delighted to see it.

According to John Houlding (Fit for Service p.387) the 7th Foot were shipped with Byng's fleet on the unfortunate Minorca expedition in 1756. Houlding also states that the ships were so undermanned that the 7th also had to serve as seamen.

The uniform details of the firing party (blue breeches, facings, caps) are consistent with those for the 7th (Royal Fusiliers). So it is beginning to look as if Byng was shot by men from his own command, namely a party of the 7th (Royal Fuziliers) acting as marines.

I would say that first you have to look at when the painting was done, and who painted it. It is possible that army personnel performed the judicial murder of Byng, but the Marines were there to enforce Admiralty discipline, and firing squads, especially for Admirals, were rare indeed, thus why I would be hesitant to think that the Navy made the Army execute their admiral.

Clearly the trial took place in a court in England, thus the army would have been relieved of such duty at that point, I suspect. There were always plenty of marines in port, and they probably would have served in a balif type capacity during the proceedings too.

Army units often served in a marine capacity, no doubt about that though.

Paintings get colours wrong all the time, especially when painted some years later. It is interesting to note, that other than the water colors done in 1775, I am not aware of any credible paintings (key word there) of Marines in the Rev War period. Not sure about earlier either.

Jim

The following account says that they were nine marines, six of which fired their muskets for the execution. Cannot verify this is correct, but interesting read.

home.wxs.nl/~pdavis/Byng.htm

"The following account says that they were nine marines, six of which fired their muskets for the execution."

Fits with the captains log viz. 'at 12 Mr Byng was shot dead by 6 Marines and put into his coffin'

The link quoted in a previous post is to the catalogue of the National Maritime Museum and gives much of the information you mention. The painting was executed c.1760 but we do not know the artist, in composition it seems to be based on an earlier print.

Byng was court-martialled in Portsmouth onboard HMS St George being sentenced 27 January 1757, sentence was carried out onboard the quarterdeck of the 'Monarch' which had served as Byng's flagship during the Minorca expedition. This was 14 March 1757. Apparently "all the men-of-war at Spithead were ordered to send their boats with the captains and all the officers of each ship, accompanied with a party of marines under arms, to attend Byng's execution on the 'Monarch'."

There are some curious anomalies in the dress of the troops, no lace evident behind the cuff in the sleeves and they are not wearing gaiters. The colourings could of course be coincidental but it strikes me as being pure serendipity that the artist should chose to depict a regiment with blue facing when one such was known to have served with Byng on the Minorca expedition. A search of the Royal Fusiliers regimental history may be the quickest way to check if they were still with the fleet in 1757.

Do you happen know if Marine sergeants carried the halberd?

Of course this is all conjecture, but here goes. First, the painting was done long after the incident. Thus it is questionable from the get go. Second, not knowing who did it, certainly raises the next question, were they even there, and if so, how close, etc?

To the uniforms. Lack of gaiters would be correct. Those were for field dress and hardly worn on shipboard, as they were to protect a man's stockings. No worries about that on board ship. Second, who knows about the lace. Certainly every unit of foot at the time had copious amounts of lace, with the excpetions of the 60th and 55th. The lack of lace argues more (to me anyway) that the artist was not to overly into detail.

As to the blue facings. This would denote a royal regiment. It could have been the artists intent to show that the execution was sanctioned by the King – right or wrong. Further, the King could have commuted the sentence, but did not. George II sat on the thrown then, and was in his last years. Thus, this could be a type of political commentary – blue, King, etc.

The number of marines in the text were reported as 12, but only 6 fired their muskets. I also go back to the idea that the army would hardly leave one of their units just sitting on board ship when not needed and not at sea.

As to the Halberd, this was a common sign of rank for an NCO at the time, and again begs the artist's first hand knowledge of the event, or just a general impression of the military at the time. From a practical standpoint, I can't think of a more useless weapon, or sign of rank, aboard ship. Halberds were more ceremonial, as they were usually traded in for a musket during combat deployment. Same for officer's espontoons.

I guess the best that can be said about this painting, at least without more facts, is that it is an interesting impression of an event, painted some years after the fact by someone who may, or may not have been there.

In the re-enactment world, we have learned to take paintings with a grain of salt. Sometimes they are pretty good, and sometimes they are not. There are no absolutes, especially when done so many years after the fact.

Jim: "Of course this is all conjecture, but here goes."

TM: Without any fact there is little else to go on.

Jim: "First, the painting was done long after the incident. Thus it is questionable from the get go. Second, not knowing who did it, certainly raises the next question, were they even there, and if so, how close, etc?"

TM: It is hardly long when one considers the dates of say some of Trumbull or Peale's paintings. The suggested date is intrigung c.1760. It is the year after the ‘Glorious Year'of victories. The NMM notes indicate that the painting was based on a print, compared to what was previously thought be the case. It is not too hard to imagine that the print/engraving was done to satisfy a public interest in the execution which suggests an early date, of course the print maker may not have been (probably was not) an eyewitness. It would be interesting to know where the print was made (I would bet on London, biggest market in the country).

Jim: "Second, who knows about the lace. Certainly every unit of foot at the time had copious amounts of lace, with the exceptions of the 60th and 55th. The lack of lace argues more (to me anyway) that the artist was not to overly into detail."

TM: Could be, but lace is a funny thing. Consider three ‘period' illustrations of the 4th Regt, the 1742 Clothing Book (hatman), Morier's grenadier painting and Morier's Culloden painting.

Problem one: We do not know the exact chronology of the two Morier paintings in relation to each other (both do however show grenadiers).

Problem two: In the 1742 and grenadier paintings the sleeve lace is depicted as being of the ladder variety but in the Culloden painting it is shown as herring bone. Now the artist may have been making it up BUT the Culloden and grenadier paintings were performed for a very discerning audience, viz. The Duke of Cumberland. So would we be justified in assigning a higher degree literal accuracy to those. In which case how do we rate the 1742 Clothing Book?

My point is that lace, although officially prescribed seems to have been subject to variation, if we can believe the pictorial evidence (and that is a big IF).

55th only removed lace (and trimmed coats) on the colonel's (Lord Howe) order for campaign purpose in 1758? Not sure what the situation was on subsequent campaigns. Prerogatives of a commanding officer as much as the artist's ignorance could account for the lack of lace but I think you make a valid point.

Jim: "As to the blue facings. This would denote a royal regiment. It could have been the artist's intent to show that the execution was sanctioned by the King – right or wrong… Thus, this could be a type of political commentary – blue, King, etc."

TM: Or it could be that he was just depicting soldiers in colours he had seen, e.g. if it was painted in London then the Guards would have been an obvious model. More intriguing is your idea that the colouring could be a deliberate political jibe in the blue and red are the Royal Livery. The purpose the print and probably/possibly this painting were almost certainly political.

Jim: "The number of marines in the text were reported as 12, but only 6 fired their muskets. I also go back to the idea that the army would hardly leave one of their units just sitting on board ship when not needed and not at sea."

TM: The fleet was grossly under strength in 1756. Fortescue states that the 7th had to help out with ship handling (infuriating no reference). I guess it depends on what happened when (if) Byng's ships returned to home port. Byng was relieved of command in Gib and only arrested on arriving in Portsmouth. The 7th's colonel, Lord Bertie gave evidence at the trial (or course does not mean to say that his regiment was back in England).

IIRC correctly when a ship returned home the crew would/could be paid off (I have to confess that the details of naval enlistment are not my forte) but this would not happened to army men. Whilst onboard they would have been on the ship's ration strength and this will be a matter of record (equally would be the presence of Marines).

Jim: "As to the Halberd, this was a common sign of rank for an NCO at the time, and again begs the artist's first hand knowledge of the event, or just a general impression of the military at the time. From a practical standpoint, I can't think of a more useless weapon, or sign of rank, aboard ship. Halberds were more ceremonial, as they were usually traded in for a musket during combat deployment. Same for officer's espontoons."

TM: That is why I asked the question. A halberd has no practical value at this time as a weapon. Sergeants and officers use pole arms as a ceremonial/drill, dressing ranks etc. In America Braddock and Amherst ordered that sergeants should carry a firelock. I can not see any practical use for a halberd (or spontoon) in marine service. The divisional orders for the Marines (see link in previous posting) mention "no Serjeant to be seen in the street without his sword on" – no mention of halberd!

Jim: I guess the best that can be said about this painting, at least without more facts, is that it is an interesting impression of an event, painted some years after the fact by someone who may, or may not have been there.

TM: I think we can be a little more constrained than that. The painting is based on a print, ‘probably' near contemporary and the date of the painting is c.1760. If a political message is intended then it is hard to see what the point would be much after c.1759 when the war was running Britain's way. So although not precisely contemporaneous it is as near as possible with the context. The case prompted a lot of public interest with transcripts of the court martial proceedings (1757), expedition documents (1756) and a pamphlet about Lord Bertie's defence of Byng (1757).

More important is whether the engraver of the original print or the painting's artist was present at the events depicted. I think that the answer must be that he was/they were not. The following is an account the execution taken from a book about Minorca but claims to quote a newspaper, the Evening Post:

"On Monday, March 14th, 1757, all men-of-war at Spithead were ordered to send their boats and their captains and all their officers of each ship, accompanied by a party of marines under arms, to attend the execution of Mr. Byng. Accordingly they rowed from Spithead, and made the harbour a little after 11 o'clock, with the utmost difficulty and danger, it blowing prodigiously hard at NW by N, and the tide off ebb against them. It was still more difficult to get so high as the Monarque lay, on board which ship the Admiral suffered. . . There was a prodigious number of boats round the ship. . . which kept all the others off. Not a soul was suffered to be aboard the Monarque except those belonging to it.
Mr. Byng, accompanied by a clergyman who attended him during his confinement, and two gentlemen of his relations, at about 12 came on the quarterdeck, when he threw his hat on the deck, kneeled on a cushion., tied a handkerchief over his eyes, and dropping another which he held in his hand as a signal, a volley from six marines was fired; five of whose bullets went through him, and he was no more. He died with great resolution and composure, not showing the least sign of timidity in the awful moment. "

This suggests to me that it was standing room only for the spectators on the quarterdeck of the Monarch (it turns out the Ramillies was actually Byng's ex-flag ship), although public executions were a spectacle for the hoi polloi, this was actually a ‘naval' event for the ‘benefit' of the fleet. Casual observers, be they print makers or artists would hardly have had a ‘back stage pass'? This in turn would suggest that the print/painting were based on written accounts in the press and other publications rather than actual observation. This of course calls into question the nature of the painting's accuracy as literal/representational rather than a political image. This a has been a good discussion.

Given the widespread use of boarding pikes etc at this time, would the halberd necessarily have been an outdated weapon to have aboard ship?

Of course, if TM is correct and the "landlubber" artist used "local" subjects, he might well have simply copied this detail as well.

I suspect that boarding pikes were not as long as a halberd. Having served aboard the HMS Rose at its last historical event as Marines (Kingston 2000), I can assure you how awkward we Marines felt floundering about with our muskets, let alone a pole arm.

Great discussion. Just FYI, but I have also seen other period prints where the colors were way off. If the original was such, the painter may simply have copied the mistake. Just a guess. :-)