Why should the Army wholeheartedly embrace the Battle Honours, the War of 1812, awarded to present-day Regiments by political mandate ? How are these Battle Honours going to be explained to present-day soldiers ?
These are good and valid questions. I do not have any answers that will satisfy all soldiers of their merits, but I will try and give an explanation.
Since all of our original traditions have come down to us from the British Army, that has to be our start point.
In 1881 a Committee under the Presidency of Gen Sir Archibald Alison, 2nd Bt, was appointed to look into the matter of granting Battle Honours, belatedly. Up to this time, Battle Honours had only been awarded for battles during the turbulent years between 1793 and 1815. Some Regiments, with over some 100 years of good and loyal service, still had no Battle Honours on their Colours, even after the massive amalgamations of 1881. Alison’s committee came to the conclusion that, “the names of such victories only should be retained as either, by themselves or by their results have left a mark in history which render their names familiar, not only to the British Army, but also to every educated gentleman”.
Again, in 1910, another committee, under the able Presidency of the Adjutant-General, had adjudicated what Alison’s Committee had decided on. The Regiments of the Army owe a deep debt of gratitude to the labour exerted by this Committee, although it was an incomplete job. Their task was by no means a light one. This committee was guided by two main principles in their selection of Battle Honours. One, “that no distinction should be granted unless the Regimental Headquarters was present in the engagement”. Two, that Honours should only be conferred on Regiments with “a continuous history from the date of the action. A break in the direct genealogical succession would invalidate the claim”.
Despite these two qualifiers, Battle Honours Committees, have continued to give ‘lip service’ to the award of Battle Honours. They seemed to want to grant Honours … not in a greedy grab for Honours … but according to the circumstances prevailing at the time and place. Many Battle Honours awarded subsequently by these two Committees, when studied, do not meet the criteria as set down, but instead were awarded mostly according to results gained by what was achieved.
reference : Norman, CB, ‘Battle Honours of the British Army’, Chap XXVII, pgs 433-436; John Murray,
Albemarle Street, W, London, 1911.
Now what do we as Canadians say ? This may (or may not) clear the ‘mud away’, so to speak. The Politicians have decreed and now the Army has to find a way to justify the award of 200 year old Battle Honours to our Regimental Soldiers, that have no direct lineal connection to them, only through ‘perpetuation’, as in the World War I Battle Honours. A lot of Militia Regiments are affected by these Battle Honours, as well as one regular Regiment … The Royal Canadian Regiment, which in 1958 gained a Reserve Battalion (the present 4th) (this time through amalgamation, 1954 was just an affiliation),which had been awarded ‘perpetuated’ Battle Honours for the First World War.
We explain these Battle Honours the same way as we did the Reserve Battalion’s Battle Honours (YPRES 1915, ’17; GRAVENSTAFEL; ST JULIEN; FESTUBERT 1915; etc) when they were added to the Regiment’s list of Battle Honours. Only members, who are serving or have served, in the Regular 1st; 2nd and 3rd Battalions can tell how successful we were.
My educated guess (for what it is worth) is that the battle honours during the WAR of 1812, will be awarded under the same terms as NORTH-WEST CANADA 1885, SOUTH AFRICA 1899-1900, WORLD WAR I; WORLD WAR II and KOREA 1951-1953 … this is all in accordance with the above 1881; 1910 British Committees (and all intervening Committees since) for the award of Battle Honours.
During the War of 1812, the British Army in Upper Canada (no more than 1,200 men, mostly in HM 1st Bn, 41st Foot9) and the British Administration of the British North American Colonies, were willing to ‘right off’ the western part of Upper Canada, west of Burlington, in order to save the rest of Canada. There were few British troops there, mostly in scattered garrisons. He most westerly were at Fort Malden (Amherstburg), on the Detroit River and Fort St Joseph, (69 km north-east of Michilimackinac), at the confluence of Lakes Superior, Michigan and Huron, and maybe the odd roving patrol to see to the training of the Militia, as well as to show the flag.
Unlike Lower Canada, which been settled by the French and saw additional settlers arrive as United Empire Loyalists, after the American Revolutionary War, Upper Canada was a split Colony. The Niagara Peninsula and all of Upper Canada east of Burlington was heavily settled by United Empire Loyalists. West of Burlington, some 4/5th of the population were immigrants from the United States, whose motivation was ‘free land’ in exchange for swearing the Royal Oath to the King. They understood what the Militia was organized for and grudgingly accepted it. Mainly because the land was rich and plentiful.
Upon the declaration of war these ex-American settlers were thrown into a quandary. Stay with the King, accommodate the invading US Army, stay neutral as long as far as possible or wholeheartedly join in on the American conquest. Each person made their own decision. Some of these same people now were sworn, as members of the Militia, to defend this land. Some did, some did not. This made recruiting by the British Army very tricky and dangerous. It is a wonder that so many militiamen answered their duty according to their Royal Oath of Allegiance.
It is with this background, the present day Army, will make the proper connections for perpetuation and award of battle honours.
When Gen Hull invaded and captured Sandwich (really all he did was occupy it), he was stopped by the few soldiers of the 1st Bn, 41st Foot (garrisoned at Fort Malden) at the River Canard. Maj Gen Brock gathered up some 260 York Militiamen, and set sail for Fort Malden. He stopped at Fort George and collected some members of the Lincoln Militia, stopped at Long Point and picked up 40 soldiers of the 1/41st Foot and members of the Norfolk and Oxford Militias and stopped at Port Talbot and collected members of the Middlesex Militia. Arriving at Fort Malden, he was joined by the Essex and Kent Militias. When operations began in earnest to capture Detroit, Brock had a small force consisting of the following :
30 gunners, Royal Artillery
250 men, 1st Bn, 41st Foot (the bulk were at Fort George (HQs), York, Queenstown, Chippewa and Fort Erie)
50 men Royal Newfoundland Fencibles Regiment
400 Militiamen of York, Lincoln, Norfolk, Oxford, Middlesex, Essex and Kent
600 Indians
For a total of 1,330 all ranks.
Maj Gen Brock dressed his Militiamen in British Regular Army Red Coats to visibly boost his numbers of Regukars to the Americans, as well as explaining that he can not control Tecumseh’s Indians once the walls of Fort Detroit are breached. Brig Gen Hull, fearing the result of an Indian incursion, surrendered to Maj Gen Brock some 2,500 soldiers.
This result was huge. All of the Michigan Territory was surrendered to the Crown, and at the cost of only a few casualties. So yes, you would be correct in thinking this was a minor skirmish.
However, the awarding of battle honours must be weighed in comparison to what was attained, with what one has. The Regiment of Oxford’s part (and in fact all units that took part, including 1st/41st Foot) was very small, when compared to the gigantic battles raging in Spain and Russia at the same time. But you must consider what was wagered and what could have been lost, but was won, when awarding battle honours. The 41s Foot was awarded the battle honour ‘DETROIT’ in 1847. They did nothing different than the Militia did. The only difference was that as many Militiamen as possible were dressed in Red Coats, to imitate Regular troops.
In essence Maj Gen Brock wagered all of western Upper Canada, and won all of the Michigan Territory.
For a comparison as to what gets a Battle Honour and what does not, I would suggest, the Action of Givenchy on 15 Jun 1915 (in which Capt Frederick William Campbell earned his Victoria Cross). By World War I standards this was a minor trench raid in support of a British assault on their left, but the casualties suffered were in the hundreds of killed and wounded. Only the 1st Battalion, CEF attacked into the German front lines, supported by the rest of the 1st Canadian Infantry Brigade.
Casualties 1st Bn, CEF, 15 Jun 1915 : 20 (12 killed and 8 wounded) out of 23 Officers (27 Officers on 30 May 19150 and 346 (68 killed and 278 wounded) out of ??? Other Ranks (808 Other Ranks on 30 May 1915) killed, wounded and missing11.
When weighed in the balance against the capture of Detroit, HM 41st Foot was awarded the Battle Honour ‘DETROIT’ (which was emblazoned on the Regimental Colour) but GIVENCHY was not even considered for a Battle Honour.
To my way of thinking, the Army only has to look at what has happened in the past, and move forward and embrace these Battle Honours. The Royal Canadian Regiment has already accepted ‘perpetuated’ Battle Honours and has experience with this. After all, when ‘perpetuation’ is designated and the affected Regiments accept these ‘perpetuations’, any Battle Honours, belatedly awarded to a ‘perpetuated’ Regiment, belong to the entire Regiment. .
References
1 - Stanley, George FG, ‘The War of 1812 : Land Operations’, Chap 4, pg 105.
2 - Richard, John, ‘Richard’s War of 1812’. Notes and Life are edited by Alexander Clark Casselman, Coles
Pub Co Ltd, Toronto, Ont, 1974 (originally in 1902 by Historical Pub Co, Toronto, Ont)
3 - Stanley, George FG; The War of 1812, Land Operations. Canadian War Museum Historical Publication N0
18, 1983, MacMillan of Canada in co-operation with National Museum of Man, National Museums of
Canada, Chap pg 4 106.
4 - Canada in the Great War, Vol 1, Military History of Canada; various authors; 1917. [ this reflects data up to
page 145, only ]
5 - Auchinleck, Gilbert; A History of the War (1812-13-14); Arms & Armour Press in Assoc with Pendragon
Press; 1972; 85368-088-4.
6 - The Annals of the War; JM Harper;
7 - Cruikshank, EA; ‘Record of the Services of Canadian Regiments in the War of 1812, Part XI, The Militia of
Norfolk, Oxford and Middlesex”; Transactions of the Canadian Military Institute, 1907, Selected Papers, No
15 (Toronto, 1908), 47.
8 - Ermatinger, CO; ‘The Talbot Regime, or, The First Half Century of the Talbot Settlement’ (St Thomas, Ont,
1904), 50
9 - Yaworsky, Jim. The Invalids in Action: The Battle of Portsmouth, 1783. October 28, 2003, Website of
Forty-First Regiment of Foot Military Living History Group, www.fortyfirst.org.
10 - Hitsman, J. MacKay. The Incredible War of 1812. Toronto, Robin Bass Studio. Updated by Donald E.
Graves, 1999, p.32.
11 - The breakdown of Officer casualties of 12 killed out of 23 engaged and the total of Other Ranks casualties of
346, are according to Sir Max Aitken’s, “Canada in Flanders”, (1916), Chap VII, page 140. Also cited in a
“Toronto Star” newspaper article, dated 25 Jun 1915 from a Canadian Associated Press cable.
The “Official History of the Canadian Army in the First World War, Canadian Expeditionary Force 1914-
1919”, by Col GWL Nicholson, CD, Chap IV, page 107, cites the losses of the 1st Canadian Infantry
Battalion, CEF as, 20 Officers and 366 Other Ranks .
The breakdown of the Other Ranks, killed, wounded and total engaged are my own, based on percentage of
figures given in Appendix 851 and Chap XIX, page 492 and 496 of Col A. F. Duguid’s, (1938), “Canadian
Forces in the Great War”, Vol 1, Part 1, as well as in.
Wounded, includes those who were admitted to hospital, as well as those who later died of their wounds.
Those soldiers who were treated for wounds and returned to duty are not included in these totals.
vaya con Dios
op:
