
Ich Dien!
The trials and tribulations of a Revolutionary War and Napoleonic War reenactor.
This print from Charles Hamilton Smith, shows two members of the 29th regiment of foot--a grenadier on the left and a light infantryman on the right. Both are wearing the uniform of home duty with white breeches and tall black gaiters. 



Ich Dien!
The information below is my 'primer' on messes, squads, platoons and companies, based on reading a lot of period texts, courts martial, and other documents. To understand this well, we must first clear our heads by accepting these ground rules:
- Regiments could do things the way they wanted, so there is no set of 'rules' that invariably applies.
- There is no relationship whatsoever between squads and platoons, between messes and platoons, or between squads and messes. All of these entities could exist within a company, but were not necessarily logically related to each other.
That said:
- A mess is a group of men who share the same tent and kettle (and other camp equipage issued in a quantity of 1 item to a group of men). In most cases the mess consisted of five men (in most cases regiments were issued one tent per five men). The mess might also include wives of married soldiers. These men eat and sleep together, but that might be all they do together. These men were all from the same company. They drew food together (although rations were calculated on a 'per man' basis, food was actually distributed per mess, and the men of the mess divided it up after cooking).
On British company muster rolls (in the WO 12 collection), the names are often listed in groups of five. Some people interpret this to be a listing of the messes, but there is ample reason to doubt this interpretation (which I'll be happy to discuss if anyone is interested). More likely it was just to make the rolls easier to read. I don't know the derivation of the term 'mess'.- A squad was a group of men assigned to the care of a non-commissioned officer within a company. Military texts by Thomas Simes and Bennett Cuthbertson describe the assignment of squads as a handy way to make sure that each man has an NCO to oversee his hygiene and the care of his clothing and accoutrements. Cuthbertson' s writing on the subject appears below, and it is key to notice that he calls them Squads of Inspection, which gives a strong suggestion of the purpose of these squads.
The texts often suggest dividing the men of a company evenly by the number of NCOs in the company. Simes suggests that squads be organized based on the rank in which men form (that is, three squads, one each for the front, center and rear ranks). Cuthbertson recommends forming squads based on the experience of the soldiers, so that each squad contains a good proportion of new men and seasoned men. The one actual squad roll that I've seen (from a company orderly book of the 28th Regiment of Foot) has the company divided into three squads in the following manner: The names of the men are written in three columns, proceeding alphabetically from left to right:
- Adams
- Baker
- Costello
- Downs
- Eagan
- Finnerty
- etc.
Each column is a squad under an NCO (see my write-up on this in The Brigade Dispatch Vol. 21 No. 2). The squad has no tactical application whatsoever. We might assume that a squad contained a fixed number of messes, but there is no basis for this assumption. The two enties appear to be completely unrelated.- A platoon is a tactical subdivision of a company - in fact, they are often called 'subdivisions' (and a 'grand division' was two companies). Whether a company has two, three or four platoons depends upon which set of procedures you're reading. Whether they're commanded by officers or NCOs likely depends upon who was actually available on the field, but I would suspect the intent was to have officers commanding platoons. The only way to get a sense of what was 'typical' is to read a number of manuals and military texts, because different authors had different ideas about this.
The skinny side of the tool is usually listed as a pin punch or vent prick. I didn't think that this was correct, so I posted a question on the RWProgressive Yahoo group. Here is the response from Jym Hoffman:As shown in "Collector's Encyclopedia" by Neumann and Kravic, some of the originals found through archeology are deteriorated so it is hard to tell the original size and sometimes the threads are eaten away. In the book "Tools for the Trades & Crafts, An 18th.Century Pattern Book, R. Timmons & Sons, Birmingham," 1791 - 1889, with Documentary By Kenneth D. Roberts, Fitzwilliam, N.H., first published in 1976, plate 133, engraved 1820 - 1830 shows a drawing of "a military turn screw with worm. An example shown to me in an tracing of an original that came from the Hubberton Battlefield, the third leg is thin and could be used as a punch, but there are also threads near the base of the fork. The widest spread between the 2 blades is 41/2" and 41/2" to the tip of the third leg. An example form Camden, S.C. (also traced for me,) the third leg is thicker and the threads are on the very end. The widest part is 37/8" by 31/2" to the tip of the third leg. If I remember correctly, there are 2 in Old Fort Niagara's collection that all three legs are flat screw driver blades. I have not seen 2 originals that are exactly the same size as are some of those modern reproductions. That is because they are using computer controlled machines to cut them out, exactly the same. I have not personally seen the ones in the Tower to know how exact in size they are.With that information in mind, I did a quick search for someone that sold a more appropriate musket tool. Luckily, Roy Najecki offers one that fits the bill. Here is a photo from Jym on what a musket tool should look like:

Ich Dien!
From: Standing Orders, Forms of Returns, Reports, Entries, etc. of the Queen's Dragoons Guards; 1795 -
"Take 6 pounds of the finest pipe-clay, pound it very small, put it in a tub, and put to it about 5 gallons of cold water. Let it remain for two or three days, stirring it now and then. Then take 6 ounces of gum dragon, and put it into 4 quarts of boiling water, and cover it up close for two or three days. When the gum is well dissolved, take a fine hair sieve, and strain it into the pipe-clay, and keep stirring the pipe-clay well all the time you are doing this. Then take half an ounce of stone blue, and dissolve it well amongst your colouring (this gives a clear gloss to the belts). Let it all remain one day longer, and it will be fit for use, putting it on lightly and evenly with a sponge."
From: The Discipline of the Light Horse by Capt. Hinde, 1778 (pg 559) -
"A Receipt for the White Belts. Take 1 ½ lb of Pipe-clay, 3 Quarts of Water, ¼ lb of Best Glue, ¼ lb of White Soap, Boil the Soap and Glue first, till dissolved, then Mix it with the Pipe-Clay, and Boil all together for a Quarter of an Hour; when Cold put it on a with a Sponge in the usual manner, and when Dry Rub it with a Glass-Bottle."
All these ingredients: pipe-clay, gum dragon, and stone blue, are still available. Pipe-clay is the white material used to make porcelain in your sink or toilet and is commercially known as Kaolin. Pottery supply firms sell kaolin. Harness makers know gum dragon by that name but it is sold as Gum Tragacanth. This mucilage substance is used to burnish the edges of harness leather. It is available from The Leather Factory, Inc.
(1-800-472-3306, item #2264) and other leather craft firms. Stone blue is hydrated copper sulfate and can be found in the plumbing dept of home centers such as Home Depot. It is used to eliminate roots in septic pipes. There are several brands and they vary in purity. Root Destroyer brand (made by Scotch Corp 214-943-4605) is 99% Copper Sulfate Pentahydrate and costs about $9 per pound. Yes, it looks like blue stones, and they can be easily crushed into a powder.
Buff faced units often would use pipe-clay with a buff tint. The tinting agent, buff ochre, is still available from jewelry manufacturing supply firms.
I've worked up the first recipe and tried it, but my results didn't meet my expectations. Perhaps my kaolin was not white enough, and the pipeclay came out very watery. So I put that project aside for when I have more time.
Today my officer's sash arrived. I ordered the sash a few weeks ago from G. Gedney Godwin. You can see a photo of the sash here:
Now the trick will be learning how to properly wrap the sash around my waist for the re-enactment event coming up.
Ich Dien!
The website, Fusiliers in Spain, has been updated. I recommend you check it out. It can be found here: Fusiliers in Spain.
Sorry for the plug, but I also run that site and I spent a few minutes updating it. If you have any recommendations for the site, let me know.
One of the problems of the re-enacting hobby is that so much of the gear has to be custom made. This usually means a pretty decent cost and potentially long wait times. If something is needed for an event, the order for that item should be placed months in advance.As I work to put together the officer's uniform for the Napoleonic unit, I am running into the timing problem.
Last May I ordered a gorget and officer's crossbelt place from a sutler in England. I was promised a shipping date of August of 2007. That date has long passed, yet no items have been received. After repeated calls to the sutler, the new ship date is now Monday, March 31st 2008. Only time will see if the items get shipped by then.
Last August, an order was placed for some custom boots. I ordered the boots in August, hoping it would be enough time to get them for the Anza event in May. Last month (Feb. 2008), I was told by the boot-maker that my order had shipped. Since no boots have been dropped off at my house, I gave the supplier a call. Apparently there was a problem with the shipper and my package can't be found.
Updates will be posted once the items arrive.
Ich Dien!