|
|
Post by Herb on Apr 16, 2010 11:50:44 GMT -5
Yesterday, while clearing out some old boxes of papers, I found my old army patrol book from a few years back. While it may surprise some, "Roger's Rules of Ranging" first published during the French and Indian War are still included in the army's patrol books.
On another topic, which I can't remember, there was some heated debate on what Travis should have done on March 6th to have prevented surprise. Some of the main ideas as I remember it, was having the garrison sleep in shifts, position guards in small groups and not as single sentries, and having the garrison "stand to" to recieve an attack at dawn. All of these concepts were viewed by some as modern concepts and that it was unreasonable to expect Travis to execute such modern ideas.
Robert Rogers wrote his rules some 75 years before the Alamo. Among those Rules [words in bracketts are mine]:
III. [when you encamp] "... keeping one half of your whole party awake alternately through the night."
XIV. " .... Each centry should consist of six men, two of which must constantly be alert, ...."
XV. "At the first dawn of the day, awake your whole detachment; that being the time when the savages [and regulars] chuse to fall upon their enemies, you should by all means be in readiness to receive them."
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Apr 16, 2010 14:52:49 GMT -5
Ah, that takes me back... I still have my copy of ST 21-75-2 (October 1980) here in my desk
|
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 16, 2010 15:44:08 GMT -5
I might be bursting historical bubbles, but don't think those are my distant cuz's exact words. The famed rules used by the modern rangers should possibly be renamed Ken Robert's Rules of Ranging since this author wrote them in his 1936 novel on Robert Rogers. They are based on Maj. Rogers' more literate Plan of Discipline after the French and Indian War in his 1765 book. Here's an interesting 2003 article on the rules controversy. news.soc.mil/releases/News%20Archive/2003/03MAY/030515-01.htm |
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Apr 17, 2010 2:17:41 GMT -5
Thanks for that; quite fascinating and yes indeed that's Sergeant McNott talking rather than Rogers himself, but while Kenneth Roberts made the language more folksy, in so doing he not only rescued the rules from obscurity but ensured that they were more easily memorised and understood by modern generations.
Going back to the OP the precise wording might have changed, but the rules are still the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Apr 17, 2010 7:09:48 GMT -5
Robert Rogers actually did command a fort, and held it successfully for eleven days (January 18-29, 1777) against an American siege. This was Fort Independence, located in today's Kingsbridge section of New York City. Rogers was Colonel of the Queen's Rangers, and along with his green-clad rangers there were Hessians, New York Provincial infantry and dragoons, and a few black Loyalist Virginians in the garrison, about 350 men in all.
Laying siege to the fort were 3,400 Americans under General William Heath. They only had three-pounders, so there wasn't going to be a breach made. But Rogers didn't sit still in a defensive mode; he launched numerous sallies, one of them pushing as far as three miles beyond the Rebel lines and capturing a small fort. The onset of heavy snows forced Heath's withdrawal, and Washington roundly chewed out the general for his failure.
One of Rogers' Rules For Ranging in the Old French War stipulated that if a position was about to be overrun, each man was to flee into the forest and make for the rendezvous point that had been decided upon earlier. (Capture by the French and Indians often mean a slow death by splinters stuck all over your body, and then lit). Of course the Rangers generally eluded their pursuers in the eighteenth century's primeval forest, as opposed to the fugitives from the Alamo who tried to run across an open prairie.
|
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 17, 2010 17:15:06 GMT -5
Thanks for that; quite fascinating and yes indeed that's Sergeant McNott talking rather than Rogers himself, but while Kenneth Roberts made the language more folksy, in so doing he not only rescued the rules from obscurity but ensured that they were more easily memorised and understood by modern generations. Going back to the OP the precise wording might have changed, but the rules are still the same. You're welcome and mostly agree. I've sometimes seen the Roberts' Rules treated as a historical record by the 75th Ranger Regiment and others. Even though Rogers' original rules gave birth to the new folksy version, I think their should be some seperaton between truth and fiction. I once had a ranger at Bragg give me a card with the modified rules. I wasn't a big fan of the triple negative rule: "Don't never forget nothing" or however it went. They are easier to read in their brevity.  |
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Apr 19, 2010 12:38:01 GMT -5
Thanks for that; quite fascinating and yes indeed that's Sergeant McNott talking rather than Rogers himself, but while Kenneth Roberts made the language more folksy, in so doing he not only rescued the rules from obscurity but ensured that they were more easily memorised and understood by modern generations. Going back to the OP the precise wording might have changed, but the rules are still the same. You're welcome and mostly agree. I've sometimes seen the Roberts' Rules treated as a historical record by the 75th Ranger Regiment and others. Even though Rogers' original rules gave birth to the new folksy version, I think their should be some seperaton between truth and fiction. I once had a ranger at Bragg give me a card with the modified rules. I wasn't a big fan of the triple negative rule: "Don't never forget nothing" or however it went. They are easier to read in their brevity. Against my advice when the statue of Major Robert Rogers was being prepared for its berth on Rogers Island, the Sgt. McNott version of Rogers' Rules was put on the marker. Of course, Rogers' original Rules would have required plaque space on all four sides of the pedestal. |
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 20, 2010 3:32:44 GMT -5
Against my advice when the statue of Major Robert Rogers was being prepared for its berth on Rogers Island, the Sgt. McNott version of Rogers' Rules was put on the marker. Of course, Rogers' original Rules would have required plaque space on all four sides of the pedestal. That's interesting. I knew the shortened rules were posted on the monument at the U.S. Ranger School, but didn't know about the Roger's Island rules. I discovered this cool link on the island monument. Were you involved in the placement of this statue in some way? www.hmdb.org/Marker.asp?Marker=18108 |
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Apr 20, 2010 5:50:38 GMT -5
Against my advice when the statue of Major Robert Rogers was being prepared for its berth on Rogers Island, the Sgt. McNott version of Rogers' Rules was put on the marker. Of course, Rogers' original Rules would have required plaque space on all four sides of the pedestal. That's interesting. I knew the shortened rules were posted on the monument at the U.S. Ranger School, but didn't know about the Roger's Island rules. I discovered this cool link on the island monument. Were you involved in the placement of this statue in some way? www.hmdb.org/Marker.asp?Marker=18108The owner of Rogers Island was a good friend of mine during the last eight years of his life. He put me in touch with the sculptress, who seemed to be of one mind about not taking suggestions that would have made her image of Rogers much more accurate. I never cared for the result. The owner also assigned me to write a book, A TRUE RANGER: THE LIFE AND MANY WARS OF MAJOR ROBERT ROGERS, which weighs about 6 pounds because I threw everything important into it I had gathered over many years of research. Next to my work on the Alamo's Wall of History, it's what I'm most proud of. |
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 20, 2010 20:08:20 GMT -5
The owner of Rogers Island was a good friend of mine during the last eight years of his life. He put me in touch with the sculptress, who seemed to be of one mind about not taking suggestions that would have made her image of Rogers much more accurate. I never cared for the result. Whew!! That is a relief because I didn't see any of your artistry in the sculpture. I thought perhaps an amatuer sculptur had taken one of your childhood drawings of Spencer Tracy as Robert Rogers and used it as the model for this horrible work. It's so stiff and lifeless that it almost looks like one of the green plastic toy soldiers that I used to buy at Hobby Lobby. Here's a blow-up of the Rogers Statue and I apologize to the artistically sensitive. www.hmdb.org/PhotoFullSize.asp?PhotoID=58793Well it sounds like a really interesting and comprehensive book. Do you get into Robert's family history a few generations back? He supposedly shares an ancestor with my Joseph Rodgers of Newberry, Mass., who was shot in the arm at Bunker Hill, while Robert was apparently still working for the British. |
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Apr 21, 2010 5:58:41 GMT -5
The owner of Rogers Island was a good friend of mine during the last eight years of his life. He put me in touch with the sculptress, who seemed to be of one mind about not taking suggestions that would have made her image of Rogers much more accurate. I never cared for the result. Whew!! That is a relief because I didn't see any of your artistry in the sculpture. I thought perhaps an amatuer sculptur had taken one of your childhood drawings of Spencer Tracy as Robert Rogers and used it as the model for this horrible work. It's so stiff and lifeless that it almost looks like one of the green plastic toy soldiers that I used to buy at Hobby Lobby. Here's a blow-up of the Rogers Statue and I apologize to the artistically sensitive. www.hmdb.org/PhotoFullSize.asp?PhotoID=58793Well it sounds like a really interesting and comprehensive book. Do you get into Robert's family history a few generations back? He supposedly shares an ancestor with my Joseph Rodgers of Newberry, Mass., who was shot in the arm at Bunker Hill, while Robert was apparently still working for the British. Rod, I agree, the statue should have been much better. Rogers deserved that. I stressed the importance, too, of more accurate details of dress and accouterments, but even there it was like talking to a brick wall. Yes, the book has three chapters on family history and other background before getting Rogers born in a frontier Massachusetts town in 1731. Rogers' Loyalist conversion took a long time to come about. In heavily researching this issue, I found that he came to America in 1775 mainly to launch another Northwest Passage expedition; he had a rich backer, and plans all written out. But after the revolution put a kibosh on that, he floundered about in the northern colonies, wanting only to remain neutral. There is no evidence that he desired to fight for the King against his fellow colonials. Only when Washington began to suspect his perambulating motives, and ordered his arrest, did Rogers seek safety in Howe's camp (1776). |
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 21, 2010 19:58:25 GMT -5
Rod, I agree, the statue should have been much better. Rogers deserved that. I stressed the importance, too, of more accurate details of dress and accouterments, but even there it was like talking to a brick wall. The statue's dress and equipment certainly looks uninspired and they should have taken your advice or anybody with a sense of historical accuracy. Beyond Rogers' phony buckskins and fighting gear, I believe he deserved a sculpture that was at least anatomically correct. The stiff and awkward body posture looks wrong for a loose limbed man o' the woods and just uncomfortable. His right arm and right leg are also not proportionate, being too long for the body. I think some of Robert's family lived in Newberry with my side, but I'm not sure how I'm related. Yea I remember reading all that somewhere, but forgot the year. I guess you have read the allegations that he sold out Nathan Hale. I like Rogers better in his early ranger career. He was definitely a tough and interesting character, but had his flaws like all of us. At least Rogers trained some good rebel rangers before the revolution. |
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Apr 22, 2010 12:55:12 GMT -5
Rod, I agree, the statue should have been much better. Rogers deserved that. I stressed the importance, too, of more accurate details of dress and accouterments, but even there it was like talking to a brick wall. The statue's dress and equipment certainly looks uninspired and they should have taken your advice or anybody with a sense of historical accuracy. Beyond Rogers' phony buckskins and fighting gear, I believe he deserved a sculpture that was at least anatomically correct. The stiff and awkward body posture looks wrong for a loose limbed man o' the woods and just uncomfortable. His right arm and right leg are also not proportionate, being too long for the body. I think some of Robert's family lived in Newberry with my side, but I'm not sure how I'm related. Yea I remember reading all that somewhere, but forgot the year. I guess you have read the allegations that he sold out Nathan Hale. I like Rogers better in his early ranger career. He was definitely a tough and interesting character, but had his flaws like all of us. At least Rogers trained some good rebel rangers before the revolution. He actually captured Nathan Hale by a counter-sleuth; but then Hale was just an amateur to begin with. As for the statue, I wanted to see Rogers in winter fighting rig, on snowshoes, a garb in which he battled at least a dozen times. |
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 22, 2010 19:16:22 GMT -5
He actually captured Nathan Hale by a counter-sleuth; but then Hale was just an amateur to begin with. I agree he was a novice spy, but he made a Hale of a rebel martyr in the years after his hanging. Hale has statues all over the place and for some reason is called the first U.S. spy. I have an ancestor on my mom's side of the family, who was supposedly a spy for George Washington, but he kept a very low profile. So low that he was never captured and never appeared in any records. The only clues we have to his revolutionary activities was that he was later recognized as a patriot and testified that he delivered supplies to the army at the siege of Yorktown. Family legend states that Gen. Washington called him the "Captain", although this crippled ancestor never served in the military. He held this honorary title for the rest of his life and served in the Virginia Legislature with the likes of Dan Boone. I wonder how many other U.S. spies served in obscurity before Nathan Hale? I'm not even sure I believe the whole Rogers story with only one source. Now that would have made a helluva monument to Robert Rogers if it were executed by a better sculptur. Sigh! What might have been. Oh, well there's always other opportunities. |
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Apr 23, 2010 14:16:47 GMT -5
He actually captured Nathan Hale by a counter-sleuth; but then Hale was just an amateur to begin with. I agree he was a novice spy, but he made a Hale of a rebel martyr in the years after his hanging. Hale has statues all over the place and for some reason is called the first U.S. spy. I have an ancestor on my mom's side of the family, who was supposedly a spy for George Washington, but he kept a very low profile. So low that he was never captured and never appeared in any records. The only clues we have to his revolutionary activities was that he was later recognized as a patriot and testified that he delivered supplies to the army at the siege of Yorktown. Family legend states that Gen. Washington called him the "Captain", although this crippled ancestor never served in the military. He held this honorary title for the rest of his life and served in the Virginia Legislature with the likes of Dan Boone. I wonder how many other U.S. spies served in obscurity before Nathan Hale? I'm not even sure I believe the whole Rogers story with only one source. Now that would have made a helluva monument to Robert Rogers if it were executed by a better sculptur. Sigh! What might have been. Oh, well there's always other opportunities. Lots of forgotten spies in the Revolution, especially around where I live, the Westchester border line, which was a no-man's land between 1777 and 1784, rife with spies, raiders, cow-boys, Tories, Indians, rangers, etc. Cooper's SPY, Harvey Birch, was actually based one one of them....and he too preferred his postwar anonymity. Funny thing about Hale; he remained one of the forgotten spies until decades later, when his story was finally resurrected. I'd wager you could probably learn more about that ancestor of yours. By the way, The G. Washington papers are all online, on the Library of Congress site. |
|
