User:JF42/sandbox
-John Andre- At age 20, he entered the British Army and joined the 7th Regiment of Foot (Royal Fuzileers) in 1771 as a lieutenant. The regiment was sent to Canada in 1773.
‘The Devil’s Own’
This nickname has been associated with the 88th Connaught Rangers since the mid-19th century, as well as with the successor regiment, the Connaught Rangers, formed in 1881.[CITE?] According to popular tradition, it was given to the regiment by Major General Thomas Picton during the Peninsular war “as a compliment to their dauntless bravery in presence of the enemy, and their uniform irregularity in camp and quarters”,{The Naval & Military Gazette and Weekly Chronicle of the United Service, etc. October 8th 1853}
Regimental sources do not support this tradition. There is no reference to the epithet or its origins in the Historical Record of the Eighty-eighth Regiment, Or Connaught Rangers of 1838 <https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=aeu.ark:/13960/t5db8wt97&view=1up&seq=47&skin=2021&q1=Rangers%20of%20connaught> nor is it mentioned in William Grattan’s 'Reminiscences of a Subaltern' serialised in The United Service Journal and Naval and Military Magazine, 1830-33. {Hathi} and published in 1847 as Adventures with the Connaught Rangers. <https://archive.org/details/adventureswithc01omangoog/page/n8/mode/2up?q=+>.
Grattan does recount an episode in which General Picton, newly appointed commander of the Third Division to which the 88th had been assigned, after ordering the summary punishment of two men of the regiment for theft, denounced the 88th in fron of the division as “Connaught footpads.” The commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Wallace, protested and Picton relented. He conceded he may have been hasty and thereafter customarily addressed the regiment as “Rangers of Connaught.” <https://archive.org/details/adventureswithc01omangoog/page/n50/mode/2up?q=footpads <https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=aeu.ark:/13960/t5db8wt97&view=1up&seq=65&skin=2021&q1=Rangers%20of%20connaught>.
It appears that the earliest reference to ‘The Devil’s Own’ as a nickname for the 88th Connaught Rangers, citing Picton as the source as quoted above, appears in a compilation of regimental ‘Sobriquets’ submitted to the Naval & Military Gazette in October 1853 <The Naval & Military Gazette and Weekly Chronicle of the United Service, etc. October 8th 1853, p 652 SOBRIQUETS OF REGIMENTS>. In subsequent years, the list was reproduced in various local newspapers, and in May 1861 an updated version of the original, ‘REVISED AND REPRINTED BY DESIRE', was published in the Naval & Military Gazette. with ‘Connaught Boys’ added to ‘The Devils Own’ as an alternative ‘sobriquet.’{CITE} This derived apparently from the custom of the Connaughts referring to themselves simply as ‘The Boys’ {CITE}
In 1878 The Regiments of the British Army, Chronologically Arranged, 'compiled by Richard Trimen’ (the earliest of several regimental compendiums produced in the late C19th) repeated the amended Gazette entry from 1861. <https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044081118978&view=1up&seq=151&skin=2021&q1=Connaught> However, by overlooking a vital comma, the author conflated the two ‘sobriquets’ and stated that “The Regiment... was nicknamed during the Peninsular War “The Devil’s Own Connaught Boys” from its gallantry in action and irregularity in quarters.” This error was then repeated in subsequent publications, and together with the original can be found regularly cited in various sources.{CITE}
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- The border of Granada (frontera de Granada in Spanish) was a border region that existed between the Nasrid kingdom of Granada and the Christian kingdoms of Murcia, Jaén, Córdoba and Seville following the integration of those former Muslim territories within the Crown of Castile in the mid-13th century. This border region underwent several changes subsequently, but on the death of Alfonso XI in 1350, the border with Granada was fixed geographically, in general terms, until the beginning of the Granada War at the end of the 15th century.[1] This territory was also known under the historical name of Banda Morisca (Moorish Strip).
In its early years as the 16th Light Dragoons, the regiment wore the standard red uniform of this branch of cavalry with black and then royal blue facings. In 1784 the red coat was replaced by a dark blue jacket. From 1816 to 1832 a dark blue lancer uniform was worn, until in December 1832 a scarlet coatee and undress jacket was authorized for all lancer regiments as part of a general policy to make red the national military colour.
In 1840 it was ordered that Light Cavalry should revert to the blue coats formerly worn. Sir John Vandeleur petitoned that the 16th might be permitted to retain their scarlet coats and on 2nd March 1841, his request was granted.
The red uniform was worn by the 16th Lancers during the First Sikh War and on its return to England in 1846, they remained the only Lancer regiment not to wear the blue of the light cavalry. [2]
"The Continental Army under Washington engaged the enemy"
It's would probably be more accurate to say, in the parlance of the day, that "the Continental Army was engaged by the enemy" at Long Island
United Kingdom
[edit]
In the British Army, folding forage caps made of linen or cotton were shown being the head by British infantry in illustrations by W.H. Pyne produced in 1803. In form similar to the laagerkappe worn by Austrian troops, this forage cap had turned-up side flaps that could be lowered to give additional warmth but was worn both fore-and-aft and athwart the head. In the course of the Napoleonic wars, this form was gradually superceded by round bonnets although, circa 1815, sappers of the Royal Engineers were depicted with a folding cap made of leather, worn athwart the head.
In the 1840s, a folding version of the Highland bonnet, known as the "Glengarry", first appeared in military use and was authorised for Highland regiments in 1851. Made of blue, milled wool with a pair of decorative ribbons hanging down the neck, it was distinguished in most regiments by a band of chequered 'dicing.' A plain blue Glengarry was subsequently ordered for all British infantry regiments in 1868. A folding cap for officers known as the "Torin" appeared circa 1884. Made of wool, in form it was similar to the earlier cap worn in the Napoleonic wars. Initially worn by staff officers, the Torin cap was later adopted selectively by officers of both cavalry and infantry regiments.
From 1894, the Glengarry was replaced in general use for all ranks by the Field Service Cap. Also known as the "Austrian Cap", becaue of similarities with the Austrian feldkappe, this had a turned-up band, fastened with buttons, that could be lowered to form a hood, secured beneath the chin to enclose the ears and neck. The Field Service Cap was then replaced by [[forage cap#British Army] a new form of cap in 1902 and although officers continued to wear the side cap as an item of undress uniform. In some regiments this took the form of the Torin cap. An all-khaki version was also selected in 1912 as head dress by the fledgling Royal Flying Corps which became the Royal Air Force (who continue to use the same form of cap to this day).
In 1937, a khaki version of the Field Service Cap was introduced as the Universal Pattern Field Service Cap and saw extensive service during World War II as a head dress to be worn with Battle Dress when steel helmets were not required. At around the same time coloured side caps in regimental facing colours were introduced for optional wear by officers of both regular and territorial regiments.
Following the introduction in 1947 of the beret as a universal headdress, the coloured field service cap continued as an optional officer's head dress for wear with barrack dress (as an alternative to the peaked, khaki Service Dress cap). Side caps have become less common with the introduction of Combat Soldier '95 camouflaged uniform (which for the first time serves as both barrack and combat dress), although they are still worn by the Rifles, Royal Artillery and some cavalry and other infantry regiments. The Torin style of side cap is still worn by the Duke of Lancaster's Regiment and the Royal Dragoon Guards.
An alternative form, known as the "Tent Cap," is worn by officers of the Queen's Royal Hussars. Unique in that it is not fitted with a badge, but identified instead by its distinctive form and regimental facing colours, its origins lie with an antecedent regiment, the 8th Kings Royal Irish Hussars, whose officers adopted the cap in 1909. Its origins are obscure but, referred to at that time as the 'Balaclava headdress,' in regimental tradition it may have been associated with the French 'bonnet-de-police' as worn by French cavalry during the Crimean war.
Auchencairn
The Haunting of Ringcroft of Stocking/The Ringcroft 'Spirit'/ Spirit of the Ring
The Ringcroft poltergeist
The "Ghost of the Ring" Trotter 'East Galloway sketches' 1901 'the Rerrick Spirit.’ Robert Chalmers Domestic Annals of Scotland' 1874
According to a pamphlet first published by local minister Alexander Telfair in 1696,
X a farmX called The [RINGCROFT] of Stocking
a smallholding known as the Ringcroft of Stocking
inhabited by the family of stonemason and farmer Andrew MacKie was the site of mysterious occurrences such as stones being thrown, cattle being moved, buildings set on fire, voices heard, family members beaten and dragged, and notes found written in blood. Telfair wrote that neighbours were hit by rocks and beaten by staves, and that he had seen and felt a ghostly arm which quickly vanished.
In the pamphlet, Telfair described
XeventsX
things
X he had considered to have been the occasion of the Trouble"X 'premised'/ considered/ suspected/ "suspected by some to have been the occasion of the troubles"
including MacKie supposedly taking an oath to devote his first child to the Devil, clothes left in the house by a "woman of ill repute", and failure to burn a tooth buried under the threshold stone by a previous tenant advised X by a spey-wife.X
'witch-wife' is the term
He does not subscribe to any of these,
According to the story, X after Telfair and several other clergymen said prayers at the farm, the trouble eventually subsided X [8][9]
the infestation persisted despite Telfair and several other clergymen saying prayers at the farm, and after two months the trouble eventually ended, o May 1st, as the Spirit itself predicted.
Telfair's pamphlet, entitled "A TRUE RELATION OF AN Apparition, Expressions and Actings, OF A SPIRIT, Which Infested the House of Andrew Mackie in Ring-Croft of Stocking, in the Paroch of Rerrick, in the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright, in Scotland. By Mr. Alexander Telfair, Minister of that Paroch: and Attested by many other Persons, who were also Eye and Ear-Witnesses", was published by an Edinburgh printer in 1696 and sold at the shop of George Mosman.[10] Telfair's account ascribed the activity to a
X "violent noisy spirit"X,
NO SUCH REFERENCE HE ONLY REFERS TO The Evil Spirit
Xand X in later years the tale became known as the "Mackie poltergeist", the "Ringcroft poltergeist", or the "Rerrick (or Rerwick) poltergeist" X [11][12]
The "Ghost of the Ring" Trotter 'East Galloway sketches' 1901 'the Rerrick Spirit.’ Robert Chalmers Domestic Annals of Scotland' 1874
The October 4, 1890 issue of the Saturday Review dismissed Telfair's story as folklore and "a curious mixture of obvious naked imposture", saying, "Five ministers, a few lairds, and a number of farmers signed this account, in which there is not a single suspicion breathed that the business was merely a practical joke. Mr. Telfair recites it as an argument against atheism, and for other reasons of edification." [13]
Sacheverell Sitwell in his book Poltergeists (1940) wrote that events described in the story were created by one of Mackie's children using ventriloquism. Sitwell observes that a voice awoke MacKie, telling him he would "be troubled till Tuesday" and that if Scotland did not "repent" it would "trouble every family in the land". According to Sitwell, "Here, again there can be no doubt whatever that the actual Poltergeist was one of the children of the family. It had, in fact, learnt to ventriloquise. This, though, does not make the mystery any less unpleasant".[14]
Academics, such as historians Lizanne Henderson and Ole Grell, wrote that Telfair's pamphlet was intended to communicate to a "less sophisticated audience" and counteract what was felt among clergymen of the period to be the dangerous influences of skepticism, atheism and deism. Henderson and Grell note Telfair's pamphlet's stated purpose to disprove "the prevailing Spirit of Atheism and Infidelity in our time, denying both in Opinion and Practice the Existence of Spirits, either of God or Devils; and consequently a Heaven and Hell..."[15][16]
RINGCROFT of Stocking, described as "a smallholding on the topside of Auchencairn", i
X is in the parish of RerrickX
part of the the parish of Rerrick.[11]
X Reportedly, a dead tree is all that remains of the MacKie farm today X.[6][17][9] X
In a field still known as The Ring, a single oak tree marks the the traditional site of the Ringcroft.
a single oak tree, known locally as the Ghost Tree (lone survivor of four trees that formerly lined the ridge) marks the traditional site of the Ringcroft.
Early maps show the likely site to have been farther down the ridge, where the site of a ruined house known as the Ring'an is marked adjacent the old clachan of Stocking. [link to NLS site 1847-51 survey ]
"According to the source (p. 75), the regiment was "granted" the distinction, it did not "assume" it."
I have not had access to the Daniel history, which dates originally from ca. 1945, and was brought up to date in the 1970s by Anthony Farrar-Hockley. It does appear to subscribe to the traditional representation of the Alexandria 'back number' badge, which was nonetheless, as I wrote in the amendment, an ornament 'acquired' by the 1st Battalion 28th Regtiment sometime shortly after they returned from Egypt. It was not awarded as some kind of battle honour as tradition would suggest. This is quite typical of a number of well known distinctions that came to the fore after the Napoleonic wars, as regiments buffed up their reputations and continued to sport non-regulation ornaments with alleged origins not only in the Great French War, but also the American War of Independence and even the Seven Years War.
However, opinions have changed since 1945 and facts have been re-examined. The old 'Soldiers of Gloster' website http://www.glosters.org/ has been amended but until recently this is what it said about the 'Back Number':
"The Back Badge shown here is a copy of the earliest known pattern issued in around 1805 after this unique distinction was first claimed by and then granted to the 28th (North Gloucestershire) Regiment. As described in the Timeline on this website, the wearing of the Back Badge by the 28th resulted from an incident during the battle of Alexandria in 1801, where the regiment fought "back to back" and succeeded in driving off enemy attacks from two directions simultaneously.
This early pattern was at first issued in silver to all ranks, but its monetary value ensured that it was a popular means among the rank and file of gaining some extra cash, and replacements were issued in silver plate instead. Worn on the stovepipe shako, the 1812 pattern "Belgic" shako and the 1816 pattern "Regency" shako, it was replaced by a simpler design in brass around 1830."
http://www.glosters.org.uk/collectionitem.php?id=2190&from=&to=&category=3&campaign=&keywords
The key phrase is 'claimed and then granted.' In spring 1823, the 28th were evidently asked what authority they could cite for their non-regulation cap ornament. We don't have their reply, but the response of the Adjutant General was positive:
"Horse Guards 11 May 1823
Sir, Referred to your letter of the 6th inst. I have the honour to acquaint you that it was never our intention to deprive the 28th Regiment of any badge of honour they may have acquired by their distinguished service in Egypt and that there will be no objection to their retaining the plate they have been accustomed to wear on the back of their caps since that service, for which this letter may be shown by you to the Inspecting General Officer as sufficient authority. I have &c. H. Taylor, [Adj Gen.]"
The badge was questioned again in 1843 which elicited this response from the highest authority:
"22 June 1843 Horse Guards The Duke of Wellington does not object to the continuance in wear of these ornaments by the officers and soldiers of the 28th Regiment."
The badge was 'acquired' by the regiment who then, in respect of their distinguished, service received authority to persist with the custom. It was not an award or an official honour, it was an ornament The actual award was the image of the 'Sphinx superscribed 'Egypt on colours and appointments that was granted in 1801 to all those corps who had served in the campaign; the first of its kind. The ornament of the 'back number' was a stylish reference to that award by the 28th while commemorating their fighting back to back at Alexandria (the fact that the 42nd RHR and 58th also found themselves facing both ways is neither here or there).
I submit that if we change the citation to the 'Soldier of Gloucester' reference then we have a more up-to-date assessment of the 'Back Badge' of the Glosters with a a more recent reference.
11th Hussars:
In the withdrawal from the Netherlands at Geldermalsen on 5th January 1795, a troop of the 11th skirmishing with French cavalry lost a pair of guns in its charge, for which various regiments subsequently claimed the credit of recovering. [15th (1800) 33rd (1814 passim) 42nd (1845 passim)]
A small American force under Nathanael Greene occupying Hobkirk's Hill, north of Camden, was attacked by British troops led by Francis Rawdon. After a fierce clash, Greene retreated, leaving Rawdon's smaller force in possession of the hill. .
Despite the victory, Rawdon soon fell back to Camden and two weeks later found it necessary to abandon Camden and withdraw toward Charleston, South Carolina. The battle was one of four contests in which Greene was defeated, though his overall strategy was successful in depriving the British of all South Carolina except Charleston." The battlefield marker is located at Broad Street and Greene Street two miles north of the center of modern Camden."
The Battle of Hobkirk's Hill (sometimes referred to as the Second Battle of Camden) was a battle of the American Revolutionary War fought on April 25, 1781, near Camden, South Carolina. A small American force under Nathanael Greene occupying Hobkirk's Hill, north of Camden, was attacked by British troops led by Francis Rawdon. After a fierce clash, Greene retreated, leaving Rawdon's smaller force in possession of the hill. The battlefield marker is located at Broad Street and Greene Street north of the center of Camden.
Despite the victory, Rawdon soon fell back to Camden and two weeks later found it necessary to abandon Camden and withdraw toward Charleston, South Carolina. The battle was one of four contests in which Greene was defeated, though his overall strategy was successful in depriving the British of all South Carolina except Charleston. The battlefield marker is located at Broad Street and Greene Street two miles north of the center of modern Camden.
Greene considered the battle a lost opportunity to defeat a significant British force of the British Army and compel them to abandon their outposts scattered across South Carolina for the safety of Charleston.[3]
-=-
Another unusual feature of the Royal Canadian Rifle Regiment was its uniform and tactical employment. While most infantry in the British Army wore the red coat for much of the nineteenth century and fought with smoothbore muskets until the 1850s, during the Napoleonic wars, regiments of rifle-armed infantry were formed, clothed in green uniforms to aid concealment in the field. Deployed as skirmishers, the men of the 60th Royal Americans, and the 95th Regiment, performed sterling service throughout the Peninsular War and the Waterloo Campaign in 1815.