Canoe Gun?

[Heelerau]

:rotf: G

 

[Loyalist Dave]

that you think an Officer Needed an arm to discipline his men!...as though He himself did such work. (!)

It is well documented, and am aware of many sporting guns taken on campaigne by British officers. To deny this is either a bad case of ignorance, or merely looking for something to fight about. In your case, I wonder which.

My friend you have a huge tendency to reply with remarks objecting to that which I never wrote.

First, there are numerous court martials from the time period where the officers had to use their swords against men. So I guess they did need the sword to discipline the men. Second, I demonstrated that the sword was also part of the rank display of a sergeant..., and that officers were to carry spontoons (those that weren't aremed with fusils)...., demonstrating rather than asserting that the sword did not "clearly" define the officer on the field. Now I've seen manuals on how to use the sword on parade, and how to use it to fight, and I suppose it's possible there were sword-signals for the men.... perhaps you'd like to provide a reference?

AT NO TIME did I write that officers did not have sporting arms, never having denied it, whether in garrison or on campaign. WHAT I DID DO was to demonstrate that your asserting about officers thus, " It is just that an officer's rank Normally precluded him from carrying a fusil/ firelock into battle,..." was again an assertion, and I did so by showing that several years before hostilities even began in North America, British peacetime orders to the contrary..., a large number of officers were armed with fusils and cartridge boxes.

I'm simply disagreeing with what you wrote and giving reason why I disagree in the form of evidence. If you think this is somehow a "fight", that's on you....

LD