Colonial ranger units.

[ganulv]

I wrote a short piece about Robert Rogers and colonial ranger units that went up online yesterday. [LINK] It’s an Internet piece so it doesn’t pretend to be comprehensive. Any and all comments and corrections from members of the forum are welcomed.

[davidbfpo]

Neat article and with a nod to Ken White too.

On a very quick thought have a look at the Trucial Oman Scouts, it had a short history and has disappeared. On Google there are numerous hits to veteran memories and of course this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trucial_Oman_Scouts

Their role appears to be a very light defence capability, in (a then) inhospitable terrain and hard climate. More a gendarmerie?

A host of British Imperial era formations were called scouts etc, it was only in WW2 that their recce and raiding capability was developed in a few places, such as Burma.

There is a good deal of nostalgia about these formations, principally on the North-West Frontier and the once famous (Jordanian) Arab Legion.

[ganulv]

On a very quick thought have a look at the Trucial Oman Scouts, it had a short history and has disappeared. On Google there are numerous hits to veteran memories and of course this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trucial_Oman_Scouts

Their role appears to be a very light defence capability, in (a then) inhospitable terrain and hard climate. More a gendarmerie?

Thanks for the heads up on them, I will have to read up. Perhaps they are somewhat in the tradition of the Pakistani Rangers? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Rangers#History

I have been keeping notes about the etymology of the term ‘ranger,’ and the initial uses seem to be in reference to positions analogous to contemporary U.S. National Park Service Rangers. (Having grown up on the boundary of a National Park, I know this to be a fairly dangerous vocation.) As far as I can tell, the use of the term in reference to (para)military units seems to first take place in 17th century North America. I could be wrong about that, of course.

[jmm99]

I've no corrections; and 2 comments:

1. The article is succinct, clear and balanced.

2. The article is appropriate for its venue.

The last point, I think, is important. It fits Snowshoe Magazine; and is not intended for the Exalted Symposium of the Battle on Snowshoes Scholars (a 400 page thesis with 85 pages of footnotes and bibliography). The latter could also be "Internet". The latter could also be filled with rubbish.

The following is not for Matt (cuz he already knows it), but for others. There were two battles on snowshoes; both with Rogers, but with different TdM composite units on the other side: Battle on Snowshoes (1757); and Battle on Snowshoes (1758). Matt has written well and accurately of the 1757 battle.

Matt's post also caused me to download (from archive.org), Journals of Major Robert Rogers (1883 ed.); and to buy two books by Bob Bearor (used through Amazon), The Battle On Snowshoes and French and Indian War Battlesites: A Controversy. The first Bearor book caught some vitriol; I concluded not to "invest" in them at full new price.

Regards

Mike

[Dayuhan]

I'll have to pass this around, as he is reputed by (admittedly fallible) family lore to be a direct ancestor...

Re this:

My thanks to Ken White for answering my queries regarding the defining characteristics of ranger units. Any errors in interpretation are, of course, my own.

The latter, of course, we already knew...Ken White does not err. Speaking of which, has anyone had news of him?

[carl]

ganulv:

I just finished this book.

http://www.amazon.com/Rustic-Warrior...ustic+warriors

You probably already know of it but if you didn't I found it very good. It covers units that could be called rangers, though they may not have been called that.

I have a question. During those days was the undergrowth in the forests less dense than it is now? I know in the UP the windfall and undergrowth is so dense it is very difficult to move around sometimes unless the snow if really deep. I also remember reading that the Indians used to intentionally burn off the undergrowth. So was it easier to move around the forests back then?

[ganulv]

I'll have to pass this around, as he is reputed by (admittedly fallible) family lore to be a direct ancestor...

Undoubtably fallible, but also undoubtably colorful!

[ganulv]

Matt's post also caused me to download (from archive.org), Journals of Major Robert Rogers (1883 ed.); and to buy two books by Bob Bearor (used through Amazon), The Battle On Snowshoes and French and Indian War Battlesites: A Controversy. The first Bearor book caught some vitriol; I concluded not to "invest" in them at full new price.

I would be interested in hearing how the Battlesites volume situates its subjects in relation to the Revolutionary War. The couple of times I have made day trips into the Champlain Corridor it was interesting to see how the heritage tourism literature at rest areas and visitor centers tended frame the French and Indian War primarily as a rehearsal for the Revolution. I then recalled it being taught to me that way in elementary and middle school. A decent way to hook a bored ten year old’s or casual tourist’s attention, I suppose, but it doesn’t seem to me to fully do justice to the conflict in and of itself.

[jmm99]

The Snowshoes book has already shipped; no order confirmation on Battlesites yet (the bookseller was listing only 1 in stock). If not, then Plan B, since I now know why "Controversy" is in the title.

I found a few refs to keep you occupied in the meantime; esp. the last one.

French and Indian War Battlesites: A Controversy. The book involves two sites and is presented as a field study:

Bob Bearor discovered what is believed to be the long-lost sites of Rogers' Rangers' winter battle of January 1757, and the fatal ambush of Lord Howe in the summer of 1758. First, the battles are recounted in picturesque detail. Then comes an explanation of the methods used in the discovery, exploration and verification of the sites. The coup de grace is a description of the treasure trove of artifacts found at the site. The book is enhanced with photographs of artifacts, along with maps and illustrations.

French & Indian War Reenactment:

What makes this year's big event so unique is that a skirmish just prior to the big battle will also be reenacted. This skirmish took place on July 6, 1758, and during that encounter the much beloved Lord Viscount Howe was killed. That may have turned the tide of the big battle to come, as Howe was an excellent military tactician and the British hope for success against Montcalm and his much smaller French force.

Bob Bearor, history buff and a reenactor himself, was asked to organize this large endeavor. (He is also the author of two books on the subject: "Battle on Snowshoes", and "French and Indian War Battlesites".) It was Bearor, a resident of Newcomb, N.Y., who discovered the actual site of that skirmish, which had long been the subject of debate among historians. Unfortunately, this event is a one-time deal. The land on which the skirmish took place is privately owned. By this time next year, Bearor says that the owners will have constructed a trailer park on the property. Sadly this is what happens to historical sites all too often...

Battle for Carillion: Lord Howe dies again in Ticonderoga. News story on the re-enactment, where the effect on the American Revolution is mentioned.

Right Rangers, Wrong Fight (Tim Abbott, 2007). The sign controversy is in your balliwick (Snowshoe 1 instead of Snowshoe 2; did they change the signs ?)



I was more interested in this snip:

The first Battle on Snowshoes was fought on January 21, 1757 between Captain Rogers with 74 rangers and French forces from Fort Carillon that included about 90 soldiers from 4 French different regiments and nearly 90 Chippewa and Ottawa warriors under the remarkable Ensign Charles-Michel Mouet de Langlade who was in every way Rogers' equal in woodcraft.

So, I had a cousin at Snowshoe 1; perhaps two, since Langlade's older brother was an engage-interpreter for the Colonial Troops at Mackinac. Langlade and his Ojibwe-Ottawa were pretty good at killing British officers (as they proved at Braddock's Last Run).

Fortunately for SWC, their aim wasn't quite as deadly at Snowshoe 1. Otherwise, Dayuhan (aka Rogers) might not be with us (depending on when Rogers had kids).

Regards

Mike