Question for Ken Osen??? (1 Viewer)

[fishead19690]

Ken I have a few Questions for you about the napoleonic era. I hope you can help, You seem to be very wise in these matters.

My main question is about misplaced troops and troopers seperated from there units. Troops that were wounded or sick left behind on the lines of comunications at depots or forts ect. to recover.

After these troops had recovered and were fit for service again what would happen to these troops??? Would they rejoin there units or join up with another unit??? and if they rejoined another unit would they keep there uniform from the old unit or be issued a new uniform? And were there surplus uniforms availible?

I guess my main question is would it be out of place for troops of other units to be intermixed and still have the uniforms of thier old units?
I have read stories of troopers getting seperated from thier units and joining up with what ever unit they could, but how common was this???
I have read of troopers taking pants and coats from the dead to replace thier worn out uniforms and even wearing uniform pieces from dead enemy troops but again how common was this???

Would it be uncommon to have troopers from various units all mixed together in a depot?
If I was to make a diorama of a depot being attacked, would it be historicly correct to have various mixed units defending it?

Also on the lines of comunications cities and towns were outposted and fortified, what kind of defences and fortifications would have been made in these towns??? Were these just a quick fix with a few gabions and a little dirt or were these more massive earth works???
I,m sure the longer they planned to stay or more strategic the postion, the more attension was paid to the defence but I just want to get a feel of what was done to defend these vital comunication lines???

 

[Ken & Ericka Osen/H&A Studio]

This period still reflected regional recruitments so men were usually returned to their units if they were still fit for service after injury. As early as the middle of the 18th century there were guidlines for encampments including setting up the camps by seniority, just as in the line of march, so the regiments were to a degree, seperated.
There were always cases of depleated units being brigaded together during service until they were brought up to strength at a latter date, but you will have to do some research here to put correct units together.
There are also many instances where the flank companies, Grenadier or Light companies were brigaded from several regiments for detached service. Take a look at the companys detached for Lexington/Concord service during the AWI.
Also keep in mind that in times of emergencys understrength line units could draw from Fencible or Embodied Milita units for service. There is an account of Fencibles in the line of march with the 42 Highlanders at Waterloo wearing their backpacks with the device of their unit on them. This description would put men from a yellow faced unit in the ranks of a blue faced Royal regiment.
As far as old uniforms or extras there is the account of the 41st Regt of Foot being issued their new uniform coatees in 1812...the old coats were issued to the Essex Milita so when they crossed into the US at Detroit there appeared to be twice as many regulars there as the really was. This and the undisclosed number of Native Warriors helped Hull make the decision to give up rather than fight.
This was somewhat unique however as coats were not issued every year, and worn out regimental coats could be retailored into fatigue garments. Depending on the item, hats, caps, and regimental coats or coatees were issued on a semi annual basis...and at one point in the British service during the Christmas season. In some cases there were also differences between the 1st and 2nd Battalions of the same regiment, including the color of metal lace or trim for the officers and the shape and style of the beltplates or cartridge box plates. This at times could also effect the headdress or coat style if one of the battalions of a regiment was on foreign service and the other was on home service. The one on service some distance from home might be in a different uniform for up to a year...although not much longer.
The Early American Federal Army often wore clothing until it was no longer servicable or until existing stores were depleated. In one case out of date uniforms from an earlier regulation were modified by tailors to conform more closely with new regulations. This army often had a mix of clothing at any one time.
As far as using clothing stripped from dead or even captured from an enemy depot...yes this was done and for good reason. There are certain items of dress in many armies of this period that are very much the same. Most working class and military personnel wear similar shoes, stockings, gaiters, shirts, in some cases trousers or knee breeches or even vests. By the turn of the 18th to the 19th centuries most armies were converting to trousers or overalls from knee breeches, and in any case the cheapest cloth was often unbleached white wool (referred to as gray), wool in drab or gray color and unbleached or bleached linen. The former for winter use and the latter for summer use. By the first quarter of the 19th century the linen was increasingly being replaced by cotton from the US. So in many cases replacing your worn out trousers with that of the enemy might not change your uniform too much.
During the War of 1812 US Privateers often took British supply ships and the cargo was sold to the highest bidders. Coatees of the 104 Regt of Foot were purchased to be used as musicians coats for the US Army as The US still used reversed colored coats, normally red with blue facings for the drummers and fifers. Captured Royal Artillery coatees were purchased and used unmodified by the US 2nd Artillery...lace, buttons and all!
I hope some of this is of help or interest...I will get back to your other questions a bit latter! All the best! Ken Osen

 

[fishead19690]

Thanks Ken, not only are you an incredible sculpter but also an incredible wealth of information also.

 

[Ken & Ericka Osen/H&A Studio]

Thanks!
I have a mix of 24th Foot (Zulu War), ACW and AWI figures on my bench right now...so I had to switch gears a bit to answer your questions. I will get the the latter half tonight.
Ken

 

[jomartvr]

HI Ken,
Help!
I had asked you on the ONTC board (when it was up) what references you used to model the AWI ramparts for Britains. You answered my question, however, I misplaced the name of the reference. What was the title of the dictionary that you consulted?

By the way the sculpting on the soft plastic unpainted ruin is great. I primed and painted it and came out pretty good. Any other soft plastic scenics in the offing?


Many thanks.
Benjamin

 

[Ken & Ericka Osen/H&A Studio]

Hi Benjamin!
The source quoted was: Capt. Geo. Smith's Universal Military Dictionary printed in London in 1779. He was the inspector of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich during the last quarter of the 18th century. The frontpiece states that it contains "A Copious Explaination of the Technical Terms & c. Used in the Equipment, Machinery, Movements, and Military Operations of an Army". This is a pretty accurate description and I find it to be wealth of primary source information!

 

[jomartvr]

Thanks Ken!

 

[Ken & Ericka Osen/H&A Studio]

As far as the second part of your question about fortifying a place for defence:
In Europe many farms, villages and cities were walled from early times for security reasons. Many of these still stand and although some are simply walled, some include a tower or two. Two well known examples of walled farm compounds are at La Haye Sainte and Hougomont and were fortified with loopholes for musketry during the Battle of Waterloo.
There were also larger fortified forts or citadels at strategic locations such as high ground and important river crossings or harbors. Many of these started as a simple Mott and Bailey fort of earth and timber, followed by a stone tower or keep surrounded by a dry or wet ditch, or moat. Some of these became more developed fortresses with ramparts and defensive towers, often in the Roman style with square towers at intervals. By the 11th century many of these were improved with round towers and large gatehouses. Examples of this style can still be found at Harlech and Conway in Great Britain. The introduction of gunpowder and artillery reduced the effectivness of this ancient system of tall walls and towers of stone and morter.
During the 17th century most of these were improved and developed along the French Vauban plan for 'modern' warfare and the use of artillery. This included lowering towers and walls, creating gun platforms and creating a series of bastions and ditches for an intergrated defence in depth. This system continued to be developed as the weapons improved and John Muller, the Professer of Artillery and Fortification at Woolwich published his 'Treatise containing the Elementary Part of Fortification Regular and Irregular' in 1746. Smith's 'Universal Military' Dictonary of 1779 is again interesting because he mentions the simple fortifications in North America, in addition to the Coehorn and Vauban plans.
Some of these fortresses are very complex but smaller more compact European versions can be found in North America at locations like Ft. Ticondaroga and Louisburg. Another intersting location that uses many of the systems outlined in Smith's dictonary... combinations of earth, wood, brick and stone is located at Ft. Niagara in NY State.
If an military unit needed to fortify a position for temporary use the age old use of ditches, earthen ramparts and sharpened stakes or Chevaux-de-frise were often employed. Some of these simple defences were originally employed by the Roman Legions for temporary camps. A redoubt could also be erected for artillery or the protection of munitions. These were often a combination of wood, earth and earth filled Gabions. If an elevated place could be used to develop this kind of earthen fort, all the better.There are great images taken by Brady, Gardner and Sullivan during the ACW of these kinds of fortifications. In many of these images you will see the additional use of earth filed 'sandbags' and 'bombproofs'. Some of the trenches before Petersburg VA were a hint at what was to come during the 1914-1918 War.
In North America where wood was very plentyful the routine was to combine the above defences with the construction of a blockhouse. This was done along all of the military roads in North America and as the settlers of the New Republic pushed westward fortified places were built by the Army and private groups alike. One of the largest wooden stockaded forts in North America was Ft. Meigs in Ohio, built in 1813. This was reconstructed in the 1970s and is a great War of 1812 site to visit.
Hope you find some of this interesting...Ken

 

[fishead19690]

Thanks again Ken. I,ve seen pictures of older fortified cities and towns in europe and spain where the whole cities had pre-erected walled defences surounding the whole city and was aware of those. My question was more focused at how much work they put into smaller cities and towns that didn,t have any defences before they arrived.
So I take it that these defences looked a lot like those you see pictures of from the civil war era???

I wanted to try and make a few more diorama pieces of some napoleonic era defences and wanted to get an idea of what they would have looked like in a small town or village depot and also wanted to know if in this situation of a small depot different units of infantry and cavalry could have been mixed up with other units left to defend these smaller outposts.
I know sick and wounded troops were left behind to recover in such places and wondered if they stayed on to defend such places after they recovered???
And if so, did they keep the uniforms from thier origanal units????


This would be a good excuse to mix in a few out of place figures in a diorama. Thats basicly what I was getting around to, a place to use my oddball figures that I only have a few of.

 

[Ken & Ericka Osen/H&A Studio]

A good general guide would be the types of defensive works you might see in Crimean War or ACW images. As I pointed out even in the Roman period it was pretty standard to dig ditches and use abbatis (felled trees turned toward the enemy).They also used sharpened stakes about 1 1/2" in diameter placed in the ground toward the enemy right behind the ditch or even Chevaux-de-Frise. With the advent of artillery and musketry it was neccessary to add earthworks or 'hasty works' (rocks, wood and earth) for additional protection. At La-Haye-Saint they also used farm implements and even house furnishings for defensive works.
So perhaps a rampart of earth, sharpened stakes and a ditch will fill your defensive needs.
As far as your 'troops' I suppose you could use your assorted figures as defenders...after all why not?
All the Best! Ken