Talk:Battle of New Orleans order of battle: British

Letter from John Morrell, M.D., U.S. Navy

Estimate of "British Army Corps and Strength" by Robert Morrell, M.D. formerly a prisoner of the British, letter dated 8 April 1815. These attachments were sent in a letter from Morrell to Major Arsène Lacarrière Latour, and appear to be the uncited source for the Nafziger order of battle.

'A list of the several corps composing the British Army at the time of its landing on the shores of the Mississippi, with an estimate of their respective force

4th Regiment of Foot (750)

7th Regiment of Foot (850)

14th Light Dragoons (350)

21st Regiment of Foot (900)

40th Regiment of Foot (1000)

43rd Regiment of Foot (850)

44th Regiment of Foot (750)

85th Regiment of Foot (650)

93rd Regiment of Foot (1,100)

95th Regiment of Foot (500)

1st West India Regiment (700)

5th West India Regiment (700)

A detachment from the 62nd Regiment (350)

Rocket brigade, artillery, drivers, engineers, sappers and miners (1,500)

Royal Marines (1,500)

Sailors from the fleet (2,000)

Total of 14,450'

'= Staff of the British Army =

Sir Edward M. Packenham, colonel of the 7th regiment of foot, lieutenant-general commander-in-chief of the expedition.

Major-general Samuel Gibbs, colonel of the 59th regiment of foot, commanding the first division.

Major-general John Lambert, colonel 1st regiment foot-guards, commanding the second division.

Major-general John Keane, colonel 60th regiment of foot, commanding the third division.

Lieutenant-colonel John Dixon[sic] of the Royal Artillery, commanding the artillery.

Lieutenant-colonel Burgoyne, of the royal engineers, commanding the engineer department.

Lieutenant-colonel Steven[sic] adjutant-general.

Lieutenant-colonel Bell, quarter-master-general.

Lieutenant-colonel Bradford and major Smith, military secretaries.

Mr. Soane, purveyor-general.

Mr. Hunter, paymaster-general.

Mr. Moody, commissary-general.

Doctor John Robb, inspector-general of hospitals.

Doctor Thomson, inspector of hospitals.'

Re-published in 1966 for the Sesquicentennial Celebration.Keith H99 (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

A quick edit to replace OCR errors. Keith H99 (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

A quick contrast against the effectives in the monthly returns

14th Light Dragoons 1st Sqn (146)

4th Regiment of Foot (802)

21st Regiment of Foot (873)

44th Regiment of Foot (552)

85th Regiment of Foot (345)

93rd Regiment of Foot (850)

95th Regiment of Foot (317)

1st West India Regiment (755)

5th West India Regiment (570)

A detachment from the 62nd Regiment (12)

Rocket brigade, artillery, drivers, engineers, sappers and miners (610+101)

Subtotal as at 25 December 1814 5,933

14th Light Dragoons 2nd Sqn (153)

Royal Staff Corps (57)

7th Regiment of Foot (887)

43rd Regiment of Foot (991)

Subtotal as at 25 October 1814 2,088

40th Regiment of Foot - arrived after the battle

Royal Marines (100 actually participated)

Sailors from the fleet (100 actually participated)

Subtotal of bootnecks and bluejackets 200

Food for thought. Keith H99 (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Request for assessment with WikiProject Military history

Reassessment request added via the following:

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Requests#Requests_for_assessment

Keith H99 (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

BL class review

BL class. IMO this meets the criteria for BL class. You asked for feedback, so here it is. Djmaschek (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• The list is packed with good information, but it is difficult to distinguish the brigade formations in the list.
• I recommend using boldface for the brigades to make them stand out.
• You might want to experiment with indenting to see what looks best.
• You are not required to use a wikitable, but if it was possible to put everything in table format, it would be easier to read. Tables are tricky to set up. Maybe if you want to get it promoted to AL class, the table might be the way to go. Examples of order of battle tables may be found in Battle of Walker's Ford and many other articles.

Major Pringle's subtotals of line infantry

In the summer of 1833, the British populace became aware of a controversy around the "Beauty or Booty" watchword. President Jackson and his ally Eaton, who had stated it was a fact this was used, were contacted by the British ambassador. This was mentioned in a travel book published that summer.

Major Pringle, formerly of the 21st Foot, took offense with a lot of the content. He wrote several letters of complaint, which were published by the Edinburgh Evening Courant. In response, the author James Stuart published a book to respond to Pringle's letters. One of the disagreements was the size of the British force at New Orleans.

The following is taken from page 95 of Refutation of aspersions [by N. Pringle] on “Three Years in North America" . It is a reproduction of Major Pringle's letter published 13 November 1883.

Now, Sir, as I happen to have an official return of every regiment of the British Army employed on that expedition, I shall give the list; Mr. Stuart can refer to the [ Secretary of War in the] Horse Guards (building) to know if I am correct. This list is of British infantry employed in the attack on the lines of New Orleans on the 8th of January 1815

747 4th Foot
750 7th Foot
800 21st Foot
820 43rd Foot
427 44th Foot
293 85th Foot [attack on right bank]
775 93rd Foot
296 95th Foot

making in all four thousand eight hundred and ninety-three ranks and file British.' Keith H99 (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The same source appears to be used by William James, 1818, p.373. The only difference is that he has 298 rank and file in the 85th Foot.

James also has

295 14th Light Dragoons

570 Royal Artillery

98 Sappers & Miners

57 Staff Corps

1040 1st & 5th West India Regt.

That same primary source must have long since been lost. Keith H99 (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Same correspondence is in a book published by Pringle too

https://archive.org/details/cihm_21443/page/n8/mode/1up?q=775

Letters by Major Norman Pringle, Late of the 21st Fusileers, Vindicating the Character of the British Army, Employed In North America in the Years 1814-15, from Aspersions Cast Upon it in Stuart’s “Three Years in North America.” Keith H99 (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Buell's faked order of battle of Pakenham's army

Column of First Attack. Major General Sir Samuel Gibbs.
Forty-fourth (Essex) Foot 816
Twenty-first (Royal Scots) Fusiliers 790
Fourth (King’s Own) Foot 796
Total First Attack Column 2,402

Column of Support or Second Attack. Major General Sir John Keane.
Ninety-third (Sutherland) Highlanders 1,008
Seventh Royal Fusiliers 780
Forty-third (Monmouth) Light Infantry 862
Total Second Attack Column 2,650

Column of Reserve. Major General John Lambert.
Eighty-fifth (Bucks) Light Infantry 560
Eighty-ninth (Dublin) Foot (Wing) 390
Twenty-seventh Foot en route from the landing-place (Wing) 360
Forty-first Foot (Landing), 5 companies 340
Royal Marines (Battalion) 600
Royal Artillery (2 batteries and 1 Rocket Battery) 318
Ninety-fifth Rifles, 3rd Battalion 546
First West India Foot (negroes) 912
Fifth West India Foot (negroes) 796
Fourteenth Light Dragoons (4 troops) 210
Total Reserve 5,032

Grand total 10,084

pp. 431-32 From Augustus C. Buell, History of Andrew Jackson: Pioneer, Patriot, Soldier, Politician, President (2 vols.; New York: Charles Scribners’s Sons, 1904), I, pp. 431-32. These figures include all troops, “actually on the field or in striking distance of it,” but do not encompass troops and seamen aboard British transports in the region.

'The total force of British troops sent against New Orleans, including the belated re-enforcements arriving after the battle, was 14,400 of all ranks, including the naval brigade. Jackson's maximum force, after he had armed his Kentucky militia with British muskets and all his regular recruits had reported for duty, was 5,780 men.' Keith H99 (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Link https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uga1.32108025262794&seq=905

Keith H99 (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The relative forces engaged have already been set forth in these pages: The British strength from reports on file in the Adjutant-General's office of Great Britain,

and the American force from General Eaton's memorandum compiled from reports of Company Commanders, the 9th of January. Keith H99 (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

'Had he simply introduced false stories without citing any source document, there would have been less of a problem, but he went one step further, and invented entire letters and journals, from which he published extracts in the book.' Buell and his notorious biography of John Paul Jones. Keith H99 (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Buell's fake casualty report

But, as already remarked, no two American historians agree as to the losses of the British or as to the arm of Service that chiefly caused such casualties, Undoubtedly the most authentic solution is to be found in the "consolidated return" of the Medical Director of the British army. This return, made some time after the battle — in fact, after the peace — when all prisoners had been released and all who could survive their wounds had recovered or been discharged for permanent disability, classifies the casualties under four heads: First, Killed outright; second, Died of Wounds; third, Wounded and permanently disabled; and, fourth, Wounded and temporarily disabled. Without going into details, the summary of the report is as follows:
381 Killed on the field
477 Died of wounds

858

1,251 Wounded and permanently disabled (discharged)
1,217 Wounded and temporarily disabled (returned to duty)

2,468

Total 3,326
Now, in Order to understand the full meaning of this Classification, it is necessary to know what the British System was in those days. Soldiers were enlisted then in the British army for "long Service." That meant for life or until numerical reduction of the strength, when the army was to be placed on a "peace footing." Under that System "permanently disabled" meant loss of limb or other injury absolutely incapacitating the soldier for further Service of any kind. "Temporarily disabled" meant wounds that might heal; but whether the healing took a week or a year made no difference. Moreover, "slight wounds" found no place in the medical and surgical reports of the British army of those days.

With regard to the causes of death and wounds at New Orleans, the British Medical Director says that: "Of the total number (3,326), about 3,000 were Struck by the small bullets the American sharpshooters used in their rifles; the rest (say 326) by the missiles of artillery or by the ounce balls used in regulation muskets."

Link: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uga1.32108022285566&seq=62 Keith H99 (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

pg 39 'The fact that the militia, poorly armed and unsteady as they were, inflicted a loss of 108 killed and wounded upon the British force, including Colonel Thornton himself severely wounded, indicates that they must have tried at least to hold their ground. But, on the other hand, the fact that they themselves lost only five killed, fourteen wounded and nineteen "missing," suggests that they did not take any extraordinary risks.' This figure of 108 does not match the British figures, which does not suggest he has been using British primary sources. (85th Foot were two dead, one captured, and 41 wounded. Royal Navy casualties were two dead, Captain Rowland Money and 18 seamen wounded. Royal Marine casualties were two dead, with three officers, one sergeant, and 12 other ranks wounded.) Latour claims that 'On the right bank of the Mississippi, British losses stood at 120 killed and wounded.' Keith H99 (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)