Life and Death in the Metropolitan Army

The French metropolitan army was the backbone of the French army – the “white coat” counterpart to the British “redcoat.” Americans familiar with the French role during the Revolutionary War are probably most familiar with the army commanded by Comte de Rochambeau that helped win a pivotal victory at Yorktown. However, a much larger proportion of the French army served further to the south, in the West Indies [1]. There, regiments were used to garrison important islands, to serve as shipboard marines [2], and to mount attacks on British-held islands. A few regiments (e.g., Auxerrois, Armagnac, and Dillon) were repeatedly used when the French took the offense. But for even those regiments that mainly spent the war in garrison, the West Indies was an extraordinarily dangerous place. The chief danger, it seems, was disease. Epidemics – which were not uncommon – could kill hundreds of men within a few months, and no army was spared.

Recently I spent some time examining transcribed records to get a better sense of the dangers faced by metropolitan army units serving in the West Indies. The records appear in Les combattants francais de la guerre americaine, 1778-1783 (1905), and include such information as when a soldier enlisted, when and where he died, and (if he survived) when he was discharged from the service [3].

Sample of the records for the grenadiers of Régiment Foix

I then charted the results from a small sample of four infantry companies in order to track life and death in these units over time. I expected to find a significant incidence of mortality in each unit, but I didn’t know how that mortality would be patterned. Would there be a sudden spike in mortality once the unit arrived in the West Indies? Would disease instead be a constant companion, leading to a steady loss of men over time? Or would mortality from disease be relatively unpredictable?

I found, in this small sample, no evidence that regiments began to suffer appalling casualties from disease upon arrival in the West Indies. Instead, disease outbreaks seem unpredictable, beyond perhaps an association with major troop movements (such as the return of d’Estaing’s force to the West Indies from Georgia in late 1779, and the assembly of a large army on Haiti in the Spring of 1782). For each company, the analysis spans the period from May, 1778, to January, 1784. The charts shows the number of enlisted men with each company on a month-by-month basis.

Fusilier Compagnie de Manoel, Régiment Hainault

• A -- August 16, 1778: The company is in combat for the first time in an engagement between the British Isis and the French César in waters off Rhode Island. Four men are killed in action, and the company is at 94% of its original strength by the end of the month.
• B -- December, 1778: The company arrives in the West Indies aboard the fleet of Charles-Henri d'Estaing. The company is present at the December 18, 1778, battle of La Vigie, but they are only lightly engaged (1 killed in action). In the following months, enlisted men begin dying at a rate of about 1 per month.
• C -- October, 1779: The company participates in the siege of Savannah, including the bloody assault on the Spring Hill redoubt. Nine enlisted men die this month (including 5 on the day of the assault). The company is at 76% of its original strength by the end of the month.
• D -- December, 1779: This month there appears to be an outbreak of sickness while the company is on Grenada. Five men die in December, 8 in January, 4 in February. By the end of February, the company is at 61% of peak strength. The 17 men who perish during this period represent 14% of the company's original complement.
• E -- January, 1784: A number of men are struck from the company list this month. (Not clear to me is if these men were discharged or if their deaths during the war was belatedly acknowledged). This reduction brings the company down to 40% of its original strength.

Grenadier Compagnie de Pecomme, Régiment Gatinois

• A -- August, 1779: The company occasionally gains new recruits during this period. Four enroll in August, 1779, bringing the company to a peak strength of 103 enlisted men.
• B -- October, 1779: The company is spared from the horrific assault on Savannah’s Spring Hill redoubt. (The chasseur company, however, does take severe losses). One death is recorded this month.
• C -- February, 1780: The disease outbreak that took a heavy toll on Régiment Hainault appears to have affected Gatinois as well. Four enlisted men's deaths are recorded this month.
• D -- October, 1781: The company is present at the siege of Yorktown, and the grenadiers lose 4 men killed outright during the assault on Redoubt #9, and an additional 3 men at other points during the siege. Several deaths are also reported in Virginia in November -- probably from men that fell ill or that succumbed to their wounds. The losses reduce the company to 79% of its peak strength.
• E -- August, 1782: Three enlisted men die during what is perhaps another period of illness. The company falls to 73% of peak strength.
• F -- April, 1783: A number of enlisted men transfer to the French colonial Régiment du Cap (Probably it is their intention to remain in the West Indies beyond the conclusion of the war).
• G -- August, 1783: The war is effectively over, and many of the enlisted men are discharged. The discharges occur in waves, with the largest number (13) occurring in August, 1783.

Chasseur Compagnie d'Artel de Veinsberg, Régiment Touraine

• A -- July, 1781: The company reaches a peak strength of 125 enlisted men.
• B -- October, 1781: The company is present at the siege of Yorktown, but no deaths are recorded among the enlisted men.
• C -- January, 1782: Five deaths are reported this month; three occur on Martinique and are likely due to illness, the other two are combat fatalities on St. Kitts
• D -- June, 1782: The company is transferred to Cap François (Haiti). En route the company is present at the battle of The Saintes (April 9 & 12), but the vessel carrying them is not heavily engaged and only 1 death is recorded. Severe illness strikes the company at the Cap starting in June.
• E -- October, 1782: The main period of illness at Cap François ends. From May to November, the company suffered 28 deaths, reducing it to 68% of peak strength. Nearly 1/3 of the company died in a little more than 1 year, and only three or four of those deaths appear to be combat related.
• F -- January, 1783: Five more deaths are recorded at Cap François in the first part of 1783. Other reductions in strength after this time are due to men being discharged.

Compagnie de Sigoyer Grenadiers, Régiment Foix

• A -- March, 1779: The company reaches a peak strength of 98 enlisted men.
• B -- October, 1779: Seven enlisted men die during the month of October. The company participates in the siege of Savannah (including the assault on the Spring Hill redoubt), but most of the deaths appear to be due to illness, including several among ill men that were left behind on the island of Martinique.
• C -- December, 1779: Seven enlisted men die during the month of December. The deaths occur on the islands of Martinique, St. Vincent, and Grenada, and also at sea. Either the company has been divided among several posts, or the company has left sick men at each of several places it has been stationed. At the end of the month, the company is down to 81% of peak strength.
• D -- April, 1782: Two enlisted die aboard the Magnanime during naval operations
• E -- July, 1783: A handful of men are struck from the rolls or are discharged; discharges continue as the war winds down.

----------------------------------------------------

Notes:

1. For an excellent history, see René Chartrand (1992). The French army in the American War of Independence.

2. Such troops were used to board enemy vessels, repel boarders from enemy vessels, and to fire on the gunners serving enemy vessels.

3. I was of course working under the assumption that these records are accurate and complete for these companies (a difficult point to gauge).

Battle of Port Royal Island (1)

By 1778, the war in the northern theater had effectively reached a stalemate, and the British began to place increasing importance on the recovery of the southern colonies. In December, 1778, British troops under Lieutenant-Colonel Archibald Campbell captured Savannah, Georgia. The following January, Brigadier-General Augustine Prévost arrived in Savannah and took command of British forces in the south.

Prévost laid out his plans to George Germain, Secretary of State for America, in a letter dated January 18, 1779:

“...I shall immediately proceed up the river to see what advantages can be expected from the frontier inhabitants of Carolina who give the strongest hopes of joining heartily whenever they find that they are to be supported. Should it appear that they do not mean to take the active part which they have promised, I shall confine my plan of operations to harassing the enemy by excursions and effectually securing this province, to which all the loyal subjects who have fled to Florida for shelter will soon return if they can be assured of being protected. If, on the contrary, the frontier inhabitants should evince the zeal which they profess, I cannot doubt but great advantages may be delivered from a diversion on their side supported by an attack at Beaufort or any of the settlements on the coast of South Carolina…”

In other words, Prévost intended to drive into the Georgian backcountry in order to galvanize American Loyalists, while at the same time launching a diversionary attack on the South Carolina post.

To effect this plan, Prévost made his headquarters at Ebenezer, Georgia, a town 25 miles northwest of Savannah, and roughly opposite Purrysburg, South Carolina, where Major-General Benjamin Lincoln was assembling a large American army.

Strategic Situation in the South (click to enlarge). This map shows places referred to in this blog post that were occupied by British and American forces in January, 1779. The British held Savannah and Ebenezer in Georgia [red dots], while the Americans held Augusta, Georgia, and Purrysburg, Beaufort (on Port Royal Island), and Charleston, South Carolina [blue dots]. Based on a 1776 map in the David Rumsey collection.

On January 24, Prévost sent Lieutenant-Colonel Campbell with a large force [1] to take Augusta, and sent a diversion against the South Carolina coast. In his words:

“In order to facilitate further the success of Colonel Campbell’s operations... I sent three companies of light infantry that came from Florida to go up Beaufort River under the escort of the Vigilant, and to draw the enemy’s spies about us to conceive that more troops were sent by sending a regiment of Hessians to the place of embarkation two miles from Savannah and marching them in the night back to their barracks.”

The three companies of light infantry belonged to the 16th regiment, and the 3rd and 4th battalions of the 60th regiment. This small force, no more than 160 men, was commanded by Major Valentine Gardiner. Nevertheless, their arrival on the South Carolina coast put the Americans in a state of alarm.

Colonel Charles Cotesworth Pinckney described the popular feeling in Charleston, South Carolina, in a letter to Brigadier-General William Moultrie:

“...many people think, this movement of the enemy is to post themselves at Port-Royal, and there wait reinforcements from the northward; others, that it was done only to cause a division and to weaken your little army, that they might more easily pass the river [i.e., so that Prévost could cross the Savannah River and invade South Carolina]; others, that it was to destroy the town and fort, plunder and return to Tybee [an island near Savannah]; but some with more penetrating looks and significant nods; that the vessels appearing in scull creek, as if intended, (Port-Royal was, or is, only a feint,) to cover a real design of landing suddenly on the Euhaws, march to a pass of consequence near Elliott's hill, on the southern road, and there throw up some field works, which with a few cannon will entirely cut off the communication from town to Gen. Lincoln's army, and put him between two fires; this last manoevre, is thought of so much consequence to the public safety, as to raise the public anxiety...”

Lincoln was not deceived, and he remained at Purrysburg with his army. However, Lincoln also did not want to see a key fort on Port-Royal Island fall to the British. He therefore ordered General Moultrie to take control of South Carolina militia on and near Port-Royal Island and defend that threatened post.

Note:

1. Campbell described the composition of this force in a March 4, 1779, letter to Lieutenant-General Henry Clinton:

“A proper supply of provisions having been collected at Ebenezer, I marched on the 24th January with Sir James Baird’s light infantry [a light company of the 71st regiment, with, perhaps, a corps of Provincial light infantry attached], the 1st battalion of the 71st regiment, the New York Volunteers, one troop of light dragoons [commanded by Captain Tawes], Colonel [Alexander] Innes’s Carolina Loyalists [i.e., the South Carolina Royalists], and the Florida Rangers, making in all one thousand effectives, rank and file, with 4 field-pieces, one howitzer and two royal mortars.”

Régiment d'Agénois

Organization

Like other French infantry regiments, Agénois consisted of two battalions (both of which served in America). Each battalion consisted of 1 grenadier company, 1 chasseur company (their equivalents in the British and American armies was light infantry), and 4 fusilier companies.

Service

One battalion of Régiment Agénois was dispatched from France to the West Indies in October, 1777. There, the battalion helped garrison the island of Guadeloupe. In 1779, a portion of the troops was placed aboard Comte d’Estaing’s fleet and participated in the siege of Savannah. There, the detachment participated in the bloody assault on the Spring Hill redoubt (October 9, 1779). Afterwards, the men from Agénois were disembarked on the isle of Grenada in the West Indies. In 1781, the battalion was reunited on Martinique, and later, sent to Virginia where it participated in the siege of Yorktown. After the British surrender, the battalion was returned to Martinique, and in January, 1782, Agénois contributed to the siege of Brimstone Hill on St. Kitts. There, on January 18, the grenadiers and chasseurs of Agénois, along with those of Touraine, were attacked at Basse-Terre by a large relief force disembarked from a British fleet. The French companies were able to contain the British landing until reinforcements arrived, and this helped bring about the eventual surrender of the British garrison on Brimstone Hill. The troops from Agénois then served aboard the French fleet that was defeated at the battle of The Saintes (April 9 and 12, 1782). Most of the fusiliers were lost: those aboard L’Hector were captured by the British navy, and those aboard Le César perished when the ship exploded.

Uniforms

At the time France entered the war, Agénois wore a uniform white coat with pink cuffs and lapels, and a green collar. A new set of uniform regulations was issued in 1779, although the older uniforms were not immediately discontinued. Under the new regulations, the regiment wore a white coat with violet cuffs. Violet also trimmed the collar, lapels, and pocket flaps, which were white. The new regulations replaced the tall bearskin caps the grenadiers traditionally wore with a three-cornered hat decorated with a red pompom.

The contemporary drawing below shows an Agénois fusilier in the 1779-regulation uniform (excepting the plume, which was a feature of the older uniform).

There is reason to doubt that Agénois strictly adhered to the new regulations. The grenadiers, for example, appear to have retained the bearskin caps. Baron de Montlezun, in his Souvenirs des Antilles (1818) compared a conical-shaped plant found in the West Indies to the caps worn by the Agénois grenadiers (among others) during the American Revolution:

“Je voudrais pouvoir détailler au botaniste la variété des plantes que je foulais aux pieds; celle qui me frappa davantage, que je ne me rappelais point d'avoir vue, et que j'ai baptisée bonnet de grenadier, est une espèce de raquette, en masse demi-ovale, ou cône arrondi au sommet, façonnée dans son contour en côtes hérissées de piquans. L'ensemble a la dimension et la forme exacte d'un bonnet de grenadier surmonté d’un panaché si minutieusement ressemblant par ses proportions, sa teinte rouge-vif, et la place qu'il occupe sur cette plante, à ceux dont se décorent nos premiers soldats d'élite, que je fus saisi d'étonnement à un point que je n'ai jamais éprouvé, et que je ne pus m'empêcher de songer tout de suite aux braves grenadiers d'Agénois et aux nôtres, qui en portaient de pareils sur leurs têtes. Quelques-unes de ces plantes ont plusieurs pompons, mais le plus souvent elles n'en ont qu'un seul d'un beau rouge et de superbe effet!”

Another discrepancy is that the supposedly violet color of the cuffs may have been closer to blue in practice. Bluish cuffs can be seen in the paintings below by Blérancourt and van Blarenberghe. Of course, this could also reflect an error on the part of the painters, or a change in the color of the paint over time. However, René Chartrand, in The French Army in the American War of Independence (1991), refers to one source at Yorktown describing a French regiment wearing “white coats turned up with blue,” which could only be the supposedly violet-clad troops from Agénois or Gâtinais.

Detail from a Blérancourt painting showing a fusilier of Régiment Forez (left) and grenadier of Régiment Agénois (center). Both regiments purportedly had violet facings. The grenadier is wearing the regulation hat with pompom.

Details from the van Blarenberghe paintings of the siege of Yorktown. The marked grouping in the left panel shows officers (from left to right) from 104e Deux-Ponts, 18e Gâtinais, and 16e Agénois. The facings of the latter two appear to be bluish. The soldiers in the right panel are from 13e Bourbonnais, 18e Gâtinais, and 16e Agénois. Again, the facings of the latter two appear bluish. Note the bearskin cap on the grenadier.

What Are the Most Discussed Battles of the American Revolution?

Although I blog principally about obscure engagements of the American Revolution, I certainly have an interest in the well-known battles. Out of curiosity, I did a web search to determine which battles are most discussed. The search was conducted as follows:

• I chose 25 different battles to search, including several fought outside the 13 colonies.
• I conducted the search using a Google web search, a Google books search, a Google scholar search, and a Google blogs search.
• I used quotation marks when the name of the battle consisted of two common nouns (e.g., "Long Island," "King's Mountain."
• I used both "siege" and "battle" in conjunction with Savannah, Charleston, and Yorktown.

I predicted that the following searches would yield the largest number of "hits":

• Battle lexington concord 1775
• Siege yorktown 1781
• Battle trenton 1776
• Battle saratoga 1777
• Battle bunker hill 1775

The results included some surprises, including that the battle yielding the most "hits" was different for each search. The top 10 for each search is listed below.

Google Web
search terms (hits)

1. Battle quebec 1775 (1,840,000)
2. Battle charleston 1780 (1,080,000)
3. Battle savannah 1779 (1,060,000)
4. Battle lexington concord 1775 (429,000)
5. Siege yorktown 1781 (406,000)
6. Battle germantown 1777 (386,000)
7. Battle princeton 1777 (251,000)
8. Battle saratoga 1777 (206,000)
9. Battle bunker hill 1775 (193,000)
10. Battle “long island” 1776 (156,000)

(This search seemed especially likely to yield false positives).

Google Books
search terms (hits)

1. Battle lexington concord 1775 (75,300)
2. Battle bunker hill 1775 (52,500)
3. Battle “long island” 1776 (43,400)
4. Battle saratoga 1777 (36,000)
5. Battle yorktown 1781 (33,400)
6. Battle trenton 1776 (32,700)
7. Battle quebec 1775 (30,200)
8. Battle princeton 1777 (29,300)
9. Battle charleston 1780 (29,100)
10. Battle monmouth 1778 (27,900)

Google Scholar
search terms (hits)

1. Battle princeton 1777 (11,300)
2. Battle quebec 1775 (11,200)
3. Battle charleston 1780 (10,800)
4. Battle “long island” 1776 (9,840)
5. Battle bunker hill 1775 (9,390)
6. Battle camden 1780 (7,390)
7. Battle lexington concord 1775 (7,130)
8. Battle trenton 1776 (7,060)
9. Battle yorktown 1781 (6,540)
10. Battle saratoga 1777 (5,930)

Google Blogs
search terms (hits)

1. Battle bunker hill 1775 (4,079)
2. Battle trenton 1776 (2,862)
3. Battle “long island” 1776 (2,866)
4. Battle quebec 1775 (2,630)
5. Battle saratoga 1777 (2,526)
6. Battle lexington concord 1775 (2,017)
7. Battle yorktown 1781 (1,942)
8. Battle princeton 1777 (1,787)
9. Battle charleston 1780 (1,484)
10. Battle brandywine 1777 (1,082)

71st Regiment of Foot

[Minor edits 12/28/09]

The 71st Regiment of Foot was raised in 1775 among the Highlanders of Scotland; it was the first British regiment to be raised after the start of the war. At its peak, the regiment had 2,340 men. The regiment was sent to New York in 1776 and participated in the battle of Long Island, and served in a minor capacity at White Plains and Fort Washington. The following spring (1777), the regiment was active in New Jersey and fought at Short Hills; that summer, the 71st accompanied William Howe to Pennsylvania, where it fought at Brandywine. Afterwards, the regiment was used to guard the British baggage and to help secure the Delaware River. The regiment returned to New York in December, 1777. While in New York, the 71st participated in the raid on Little Egg Harbor, New Jersey (1778), and the grenadiers of the regiment were captured at Stony Point (1779). The 71st participated in the capture of Savannah (1778), and Augusta (1779) in Georgia. In that same campaign it served with distinction at Briar Creek, Stono Ferry, and the siege of Savannah (1779). The following year (1780), the 71st participated in the siege of Charleston and was garrisoned at Cheraws, South Carolina, when the British established a system of outposts in that state.

The 71st suffered significant losses in 1779-1780 due to illness. Captain Johann Ewald of the Hessian Jaegers recorded in his diary (February 2, 1780) that "The remainder of the 71st Scottish Regiment, which had arrived from Savannah, joined us here [near Charleston]. The regiment had melted away during this war from three thousand to four hundred men, due partly to the sword and partly to the climate."

The 71st was placed in reserve at Camden (1780), and helped repel the Continentals when the British left began to gave way. Subsequently, the regiment participated in Cornwallis' abortive invasion of North Carolina, and was present at the capture of Charlotte (1780). The 1st battalion of the 71st and the light infantry of both battalions were destroyed at Cowpens. The 2nd battalion fought at Wetzell's Mill and Guilford Courthouse (1781), and was captured at Yorktown (1781).

The images below show my 1st battalion of the 71st advancing into action. The uniform is based on the Troiani painting of an infantryman of the 71st in the South. Among the miniatures is a bagpiper (wearing a enlisted man's coat with some lace added to the shoulders rather than a proper musician's uniform). Colonel Otho Williams mentioned in a letter that the bagpipes of the 71st were captured at Cowpens.

Feud with Tarleton

Immediately after Cowpens, a long-running feud began between Tarleton and the officers of the 71st. Lieutenant-Colonel John Eager Howard of the Maryland continentals recalled that the captured, "Major M'Arthur [of the 71st] very freely entered. into conversation, and said that he was an officer before Tarleton was born; that the best troops in the service were put under 'that boy' to be sacrificed." Brigadier-General William Moultrie of South Carolina heard the paroled British officers echoing these sentiments after their arrival in Charleston, where they awaited to be exchanged for American prisoners of war. He recalled, "Some of the old British officers who were made prisoners, and paroled to Charlestown, when they came down, were exceedingly angry indeed, at their defeat, and were heard to say, 'that was the consequence of trusting such a command to a boy like Tarleton.'" David Stewart's 1822 Sketches... of the Highlanders of Scotland related that, "if they [the 71st] had been properly led on and supported, they would have shown themselves at Cowpens the same as in all other actions... The troops were hurried into action, without any previous examination of the ground, or of the disposition of the enemy; and so strong was the impression on the minds of the officers of the Highland regiment that the fault did not lie with their men, that they made a representation to Lord Cornwallis, not to be employed again under the same officer. His Lordship complied with their request." The feud reached its climax with the attacks of Lieutenant Roderick's Mackenzie on Tarleton. The first of these appeared in a London newspaper while the war was still in progress. In this, Mackenzie complained to Tarleton that, "You got yourself and your party completely ambuscaded, completely surrounded, upon all sides, by Mr. Morgan's rifle men. What was the consequence? The two detachments of British were made prisoners after a great slaughter was made among them, your legion dragoons were so broke by galling fire of rifle shot that your charging was in vain, till prudence, on your side, with about twenty men who were well mounted, made your retreat good, by leaving the remains of the poor blended legion in the hands of Mr. Morgan."

Sources:

Philip R. N. Katcher (1973). Encyclopedia of British, Provincial, and German Army Units 1775-1783. Stackpole Books.

Johann Ewald (1979). Diary of the American War: A Hessian Journal. Translated by Joseph P Tustin. New Haven: Yale University Press.

John Moncure's online history of the battle, The Cowpens Staff Ride and Battlefield Tour, includes a transcription of statements by Tarleton, Cornwallis, Howard, and Mackenzie's August 9, 1782, letter in the London Morning Chronicle.

William Moultrie's 1802 Memoirs of the American Revolution.

A summary of the Otho Williams papers can be found here. The item in question is a letter from Williams to Dr. James McHenry, dated January 23, 1781.