Militia

Anyone have any picks of Militia uniforms from this period?

Most nations had militia type units. For Prussia and Austria and minor German states search Landwehr.For Russia ,Opolchenie. I suppose the French equivalent were National Guard .

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

From Knotel Uniformenkunde

Brilliant got any of Brit militia?

I don't think Britain used militia really at this time.

Originally Posted by EmperorBatman999

I don't think Britain used militia really at this time.

Britian had an extremely large force of militia conscripted under the Ballot Act and organised into County based forces. They also had a secondary orgnaisations called the Army of the Reserve which were recruited in the same way but were eligable for service in the regular army if they ciould be persuaded to volunteer.

Pretty sure they did, Ive found references to them...

I already saw pics of Landwehr in NTW I think.

Watch Sharpe, they have militia there .

Ill look into that cheers.

What are the names of those hats the militia are wearing in that picture?

The Yeomen in Sharpe had 'Tarleton' hats.

Originally Posted by brucedickenson

What are the names of those hats the militia are wearing in that picture?

The Yeomen in Sharpe had 'Tarleton' hats.

I was wondering the same thing, they look like officer hats.

Russian militia types Opolchenie. Some had pilkes and no muskets.




Worcestershire militia. The British militia uniform doesn 't seem much different from the line infantry but there would have been many individual differences.


The Spanish wore all sorts of uniform styles .especally militia units.



US militia seems to have no standard uniform ,many different styles.

Originally Posted by Jihada

Worcestershire militia. The British militia uniform doesn 't seem much different from the line infantry but there would have been many individual differences.

Yes, as far as I can tell the British Militia and Army of the Reserve wore standard regulation uniforms. The only differences would be in the details, e.g. facing colours, regimental colours and buttons.

The Yeomanry in Sharpe were light cavalry and so were wearing the standard light cavalry attire of the period which included a Tarleton Helmet, it was later replaced by a light dragoon shako.


Manchester Yeomanry charge the crowd at Peterloo 1819

Here a beautiful painting about Militia. Spanish one in this case.



These guys are reenactors doing the "Aragon Volunteers"



Battalion of Clavijo (Third Volunteers of Leon) Battle of Medina de Ríoseco 1808

@Jihada

US militia was put on a shirt and pants, its time to do some shootin!

The US militia were a disaster during the War of 1812 at least in field battles but I suppose that could be said of many militia units at the time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

Originally Posted by Jihada

The US militia were a disaster during the War of 1812 at least in field battles but I suppose that could be said of many militia units at the time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

I think that would largely depend upon the purpose for which the militia was raised, the method by which it was raised and equally important the method used to recruit the regular army of the same nation.

For example the British Militia was raised solely for the purpose of providing a dependable force of men capable of defending the homeland. It was raised by Conscription Ballot, and so very few men were exempt, although substitutes could be purchased by those with the money to do so. Equally, important was the fact that service in the militia exempted the militiaman from service in the Regular Army or the Royal Navy, and that both these services relied upon volunteers (plus impressment for the Royal Navy). Consequently, the average militiaman was from a higher social class than the average soldier, probably lower middle class, upper working class. Their shortcoming was their officers and militia is reported to have been used as little more than a popular drinking club by the upper classes, often officers never even saw their units let alone served with them. However, the general standard of drill and discipline was said to be higher than that of the regular army, and on the couple of occassions they saw action they acquitted themselves well. Certainly, the regular army considered the militia to be a great source of recruits once they were finally given the right to ask them for volunteers, and trained militiamen could virtually choose which regiment they wanted to join. The main thing was that there was no conflict over recruits between the militia and regular army and so unlike other nations the British militia was not formed by the left-overs that were unfit for regular service, but in many way's it was the other way around with the regulars having to make do with the more desperate of society, whilst those with the intelligence and funds joined the militia.

By comparison the Landwehr in the Prussian Army was formed from the 'Levee en-masse' ordered in each canton during 1813. The 'Krumper System had only produced 37,000 men and these had already been mobilzed and absorbed into the regular army a month before, now all cantons were required to list all able bodied men for possible service in the Army of the Reserve and the Landwehr. Those aged between 17 and 24 were then given eight days to report for duty with the Army of the Reserve in February 1813, and a month later the Landwehr were mobilised from those that were left producing a further 120,000 troops by July 1813. But apart from a few officers transferred from the line and Volunteer FrieKorps these Landwehr units were formed from those men who had already been excluded from service in the Regular or Reserve forces.

Originally Posted by Jihada

The US militia were a disaster during the War of 1812 at least in field battles but I suppose that could be said of many militia units at the time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

The one-line summary from that site would support your assertion.

Odd, though, how when you look at the battles on a case by case basis, the militia performed better than you'd be led to believe. I can think of one major engagement, Bladensburg, where militia performed badly. Then two, the subsequent Battle of Baltimore and the Battle of New Orleans, were major victories.

(I'd call Plattsburg a US naval victory with an ancillary land component.)

Unless you can somehow hand-wave away the battles of Baltimore and New Orleans, though, I'd suggest calling the US Militia a "disaster" is unfounded.

Originally Posted by Randall Turner

The one-line summary from that site would support your assertion.

Odd, though, how when you look at the battles on a case by case basis, the militia performed better than you'd be led to believe. I can think of one major engagement, Bladensburg, where militia performed badly. Then two, the subsequent Battle of Baltimore and the Battle of New Orleans, were major victories.

(I'd call Plattsburg a US naval victory with an ancillary land component.)

Unless you can somehow hand-wave away the battles of Baltimore and New Orleans, though, I'd suggest calling the US Militia a "disaster" is unfounded.

Happy New Year Randall, hope you had a good christmas.

Just thought I'd put in my two-penneth on The Battle of New Orlean's, which I did a bit of research on for our earlier debates. Personally, the impression I get from reading the British account of the battle is that it was not so much an American victory as a British defeat. From what I can gather the British pretty much defeated themselves, the Americans, militia or pirates, basically just sat behind their earthworks and used them as target practice until they gave up and went away.

A simple check of the casulaties seems to confirm the one sided nature of this event, in fact, one could hardly call it a battle. British losses were 385 killed, 1,186 wounded and 484 captured, American losses were 13 killed, 58 wounded and 30 captured.

Basically, it was complete cock-up in British planning and execution.

Its also worth noting that neither Baltimore, nor New Orleans were battles in the traditional sense of the word. Both were British attempts to capture fortifications, and as such would be better described as seiges or at best escalades. What both events show is that the old Welsh proverb 'Any man can be brave behind a castle wall' remained true in 1812. It appears that when given a solid object to defend the American militia were capable of standing their ground and defending it, providing that the British screwed up their assault plans, but in open battle they had a tendency to panic.

At North Point a lucky shot killed the British General (General Ross) as he conducted his initial battlefield reconnaisance before the British had even managed to finish disembarking. According to Lt, Gleig of the 85th Foot this had a demoralising affect on the entire British landing force.

“It is impossible to conceive the effect which this melancholy spectacle produced throughout the army. By the courteousness and condescension of his manners, General Ross had secured the absolute love of all who served under him.” Lt Gleig 85th Foot

Command at North Point now passed to the rather cautious Colonel Brooke, who had been left in the rear to supervise the disembarkation. Nevertheless, once the troops were unloaded he was successful in driving the American's from the field, although Sticklers Brigade supported by artillery put up a spirited defence behind a wooden palisade for about an hour before giving up.

There's a rather nice account of the battle here: http://www.warof1812.ca/northpoint.htm

I think you guys are going to have to concede that after exhausting my library's pool of history books dealing with the War of 1812, at this point I probably know more about the silly affair than you gentlemen. I read the Wiki article the first time, Jihada, and I'm aware of the circumstances around both the Battle of New Orleans and the Battle of North Point, Didz (which is considered part of the Battle of Baltimore by most US sources).

As pertains to the Wiki article, Jihada, as I said - it supports your assertion. I'd suggest that copying it a few more times won't help make your case, nor refute what I'm maintaining - that when you look at each battle of the War of 1812 in detail, the Militia didn't perform that badly and scored significant successes. I'd also make the observation that Regular Army generals were not enamored of the State controlled Militia system, and Sumner had institutional reasons (other than battlefield effectiveness) to want the Militia system abolished. It seems obvious to me that battlefield performance is more germane to the question of actual effectiveness than any contemporary quotes. Suggestion: Read Elting's "Amateurs to Arms". He's more objective than Latimer ("1812: War with America") and more knowledgeable of military matters.

Didz, I'm aware of the fact that the US Militia Riflemen wounded Ross at North Point. (As well as Riall [vs. regulars] at Lundy's Lane, Packenham at New Orleans, and the British commander of the advance force at Plattsburg, for that matter.) I'd say that's more of an argument supporting the effectiveness of US troops than the contrary, wouldn't you? Also, before his demise, Ross was decidedly not in favor of the British attack plan - there was no sea-change of opinion there. Of course it affects his force's morale, much as Winfield Scott's wound at Lundy's Lane affected the US troops. That's all just part of the flow of battle. I'm also aware that the Battle of New Orleans was a defensive battle for US troops, much as most of Wellington's battles were defensive battles from strong positions in the Peninsular War. I'm not sure you can raise these sorts of "special circumstances" arguments without taking into account those of, for example, Bladensburg, where the ad-hoc US forces engaged piecemeal without an established chain of command or any experience fighting together. (Especially when contrasting the performance of those same forces later at North Point.)

Edit: To be clear - I'm not saying that Miltia troops are, in general, as effective as Regulars. I'm objecting to the characterization of US Militia's performance during the War of 1812 as "disastrous", because the facts just don't support it. They largely accomplished their original mission, that of national defense.